Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO

Indonesian Gunboat (Incident)

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the action of an Indonesian gunboat in attacking a kumpit in North Borneo territorial waters near Tawau recently.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): On 28th December an Indonesian gunboat intercepted a kumpit sailing off Tawau in North Borneo, arrested the crew and took it in tow. The kumpit was later abandoned as a wreck. On receiving a report of the incident H.M.S. "Barrosa" chased the gunboat; and the commanding officer, together with a police officer, went on board on the high seas. The members of the arrested crew of the kumpit were found to be Indonesian and, as the national status of the kumpit could not be established or that it had been stopped inside North Borneo territorial waters, the "Barrosa" withdrew.

Mr. Turner: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend and the Admiralty on having one of our latest vessels available on the spot, but, in view of similar incidents in the past, can my hon. Friend say whether representations have been made to the Indonesian Government to stop similar incidents in the future?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, the Governor of North Borneo made an immediate protest to the Indonesian consul. As my hon. Friend knows, the main difficulty in these cases is to establish identification. The people who were found on the Indonesian vessel were, in fact, of Indonesian nationality, and it was not established until later that the boat was owned by North Borneo Chinese.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. HELENA

Bus Accident (Medical Supplies and Drugs)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the medical supplies and drugs which were delivered to St. Helena by United States aircraft and ships following the bus accident which occurred there on 24th December.

Mr. Fisher: As the reply is rather long I will, with permission, arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I should like to take this opportunity of saying how grateful we are to the United States authorities for the valuable help which they gave in this matter in arranging both for an extra doctor to get quickly to the island and for the transport of medical supplies which were urgently needed.

Mr. Hughes: While associating, myself with the thanks which the hon. Gentleman has just given, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State why these necessary drugs are not available on St. Helena to meet emergencies of this kind? I think that he should explain to the House why there is this constant lack of necessary drugs on this remote island. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that there are now sufficient necessary drugs on St. Helena to meet any emergency which may occur now or in the future?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, there are sufficient drugs there now. There was a shortage of drugs on the island as some of the drugs ordered were not dispatched on a boat arriving on 23rd December owing to shipping and other difficulties at a time when, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there was an actual shortage of food supplies on the island. The main effort was concentrated on them and I am afraid that the drugs, for which there would have been room on the ship, were omitted on that occasion.

Mr. Dugdale: May I ask why it is that, although we are said to have a large number of ships and aircraft, we should not be able to provide either but have to rely on the Americans to send these things?

Mr. Fisher: Actually, the Navy offered to lay on a frigate, but it was quicker to send help by way of American aircraft.

Mr. Dugdale: Had we no aircraft?

Mr. Fisher: We had a Shackleton available, but there was bad weather here. It would not in any case have got there any quicker than the American aircraft.

Following is the reply:

Hyalase
10 ampoules


Sulphamezathine
750 tablets


Saluric (Chlorothiazide)
100 tablets


Transfusion sets
12


Streptomycin
425 grams


Anti-Tetanus serum
14 doses and 100 ampoules


Piriton (Chlorpheniramine maleate)
100 ampoules


Gauze
200 yards


Largactil (or American equivalent)
50 ampoules


Injection of Compazine (Prochlorperazine maleate)
250 milligrams


Promazine Hydrochloride
7 vials

Expenditure

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, how the proposed expenditure of £76,000 in St. Helena in 1963 will be divided between the proposed projects.

Mr. Fisher: The budget provides £12,000 for the subsidising of essential foodstuffs, £2,000 for relief of the poor, £13,000 for unemployment relief, £17,000 for public works, £23,000 for agricultural improvements and £9,000 for subsidising the production of flax.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the amount allocated is that which was asked for by the Governor of St. Helena? Can he explain to me why the Secretary of State for the Colonies has, apparently, most unfortunately neglected this important little island? Is he aware that I am extremely angry at the way in which this affair has been handled?

Mr. Fisher: I am not aware of any neglect of St. Helena by my right hon. Friend, nor do I know of any request by the Governor for larger funds than those which I have stated.

Surgeon (Permanent Duty)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are

being taken to send a surgeon to St. Helena for permanent duty.

Mr. Fisher: The island's Senior Medical Officer is a medical practitioner fully capable of major surgery. A second doctor with surgical experience will leave for the island the day after tomorrow.

Mr. Hughes: But if the doctor is capable of major surgery, why was it necessary to obtain the services of a surgeon from this country to perform the operations after the accident?

Mr. Fisher: It was rather an exceptional accident. There were nine people with very serious injuries, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and it was thought advisable to send reinforcements, but the doctor is, in fact, capable of major surgery and does carry it out in the hospital there.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEYCHELLES

International Airport

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what would be the cost of building and maintaining an airport of international standard on the Seychelles.

Mr. Fisher: The cost of building a suitable airfield has been estimated at a little over £2 million, and the cost of operating it at over £25,000 per annum. It has for long been recognised that air service would bring economic advantages to the Seychelles but I am not satisfied that these would be such as to justify so large an investment. In the meantime the available funds for development are urgently needed for other schemes in the territory.

Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he look into the strategic value of an airport and the possible earnings from international airlines and estimate the amount of the £2 million which would be paid to the local population? Having done so, would not he find that the expenditure was fully justified?

Mr. Fisher: I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air about the strategic aspect. As my hon. Friend knows, unemployment is one of the major problems in the Seychelles. Tourism and airports do not provide as much employment as agriculture, and


were this sort of money available I should prefer to spend it on improving agricultural schemes.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of local support for this proposition? Can he assure the House that this is not a case of an artificially high figure being quoted in order to discourage a project which might be carried out more economically? With the dwindling in the number of Colonial Territories, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is of importance that the rather forgotten islands of the world, including the Seychelles, should get special attention?

Mr. Fisher: I have no reason to suppose that the figure is inflated. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for his support.

Sir L. Ropner: Although the question relates to all the islands, can my hon. Friend say whether the cost of constructing an airport and running it relates only to the Mahé group?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, this relates to the main islands of Mahé.

Expatriate Officers

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the appointment and promotion of expatriate officers to posts in the Seychelles.

Mr. Fisher: Expatriates are appointed when no suitably qualified Seychellois are available to fill vacancies. Once appointed, all officers in the service of the Seychelles Government whether expatriate or local are equally considered for promotion.

Mr. Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very widespread concern that has been felt in the Seychelles at the recent appointment of an expatriate director of medical services while there were two perfectly qualified candidates, born in the Seychelles, who could have taken the post?

Mr. Fisher: I cannot comment on the particular case, because I do not actually know about it; but I think that if one gives preference to local people on appointment it is fair to consider everybody on his merits when it comes to promotion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA

Broadcasting Ordinance

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement on the reply he has sent to the petition of the Malta Labour Party against the Broadcasting Ordinance in Malta.

Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend has asked the Governor to inform Mr. Mintoff that he cannot agree to his proposals and that, if he wishes to secure amendment of the Ordinance, his proper course is to introduce a Motion in the Legislative Assembly.

Mrs. Castle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is quite unsatisfactory? Is it not a fact that the provision in the Ordinance preventing broadcasts which offend against religious sentiment is drawn so wide that it is used to censor political comments by the Maltese Labour Party which in no way violate the Constitution? As, under Section 121 of the Blood Constitution, Her Majesty's Government in Council may repeal or amend any part of it, will not the hon. Gentleman take advantage of that section and thus restore true democratic rights to the Maltese Labour Party?

Mr. Fisher: I think that the hon. Lady is under a misapprehension. We did not reserve power to amend the Ordinance but only to prevent undesirable amendments to it. In other words, we have a negative and not a positive power. To resume the power of amendment at the present stage of Malta's development, even if there were thought to be a good case for doing so, would be a retrograde step which would be deeply resented by Dr. Borg Olivier and his Government, especially at a time when Malta is approaching independence.

Mrs. Castle: Is not it a fact that it is a hopeless proposition for Mr. Mintoff to try to get this unfair Ordinance amended in the Legislative Council, because the Ordinance is being used to the advantage of the majority party there, which will certainly not extend democratic rights to the Maltese Labour Party?

Mr. Fisher: That is not correct. Mr. Mintoff was offered his share of broadcasting time, exactly the same amount


as was offered to Dr. Borg Olivier's party. There was complete parity of time allotted. But Mr. Mintoff wanted to attack the Church and this the Ordinance does not permit. He therefore refused to take part in any further discussion and would not take up the time offered to him.

Bailey (Malta) Ltd.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many working days were lost due to industrial disputes at Bailey (Malta) Ltd. from the time this company took over the dockyard at Malta in 1959 until the present time.

Mr. Fisher: I understand that the total number of working days lost up to the time when the Council of Administration took over was nine.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that those figures are a remarkable tribute to the industrial relations that were established by the company, considering that a few days before it took over there were riots taking place in the dockyard involving arson, destruction of Government property and physical assault on the admiral superintendent, involving actual bodily harm?

Mr. Fisher: I should add that the number of working days lost is not the only criterion. Industrial disputes have led the union to impose a ban on overtime and that effectively prevents any commercial ships going into the dockyard while the ban is on. I should say that a good record of industrial relations would not of itself be any justification for the kind of financial transactions criticised in the Muirie Report.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the first three months' ban on overtime was entirely a pre-election move by the Malta General Workers Union and the present six weeks' ban on overtime, in spite of what the Government promised, is still going on?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot go on about this. It almost amounts to a speech.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in appointing Mr. Muirie to submit a report on Bailey (Malta)

Limited, he instructed him not to take political factors into account.

Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. Mr. Muirie was appointed under Clause 8 of the Financial Agreement with the company to inspect its books, and political factors were therefore irrelevant.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, considering the exceptional conditions under which the company was working and the vital necessity of not decreasing the labour force at all in the dockyard, any report which ignored the political factors would be of very limited value?

Mr. Fisher: No, I do not think so. We were concerned about the financial transactions of this company. That is why we employed an accountant to look at the books. It was a strictly limited inquiry with that purpose alone. It is for the Government to consider political considerations, not Mr. Muirie.

Sir W. Teeling: Would my hon. Friend explain why in the report Mr. Muirie made a point of the fact that he did not have to deal with political matters?

Mr. Fisher: That is exactly the point of what I have been saying: he did not have to do so.

Sir P. Agnew: Is it not the fact that the matters raised in the Muirie Report are to be the subject of litigation between Her Majesty's Government and Bailey's? Is it not a good thing to suspend judgment upon them until the facts as decided by the courts are known?

Mr. Fisher: It is perfectly true that this is a subject of litigation. No one is making any judgments about it. The House knows the contents of the Muirie Report and can make its own judgment on them.

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he first decided to meet the chairman and vice-chairman of Bailey (Malta) Ltd.; and why, in view of the seriousness of the dockyard problem to Malta and the fact that it was then a reserved subject to the British Government, he did not meet these directors immediately after the receipt of the Muirie Report.

Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend decided last December to see the chairman and vice-chairman as soon as possible after his return from the Caribbean in January. The vice-chairman was so informed on the 14th December. As to the second part of the Question, the period between the date of receipt of the report and the meeting with the chairman and vice-chairman was largely taken up with the consideration of the grave matters raised in the report and the important issues arising out of them.

Sir W. Teeling: Was it not a great pity that the Secretary of State did not meet these gentlemen earlier so that a lot of confusion and a great deal of misunderstanding might have been avoided?

Mr. Fisher: It may be so, but there were a number of difficulties in arranging the meeting, including my right hon. Friend's illness—which the House will remember occurred in November—his visits to India and Pakistan and to the Caribbean in December and January. Subsequently, there was a certain amount of difficulty in arranging a mutually convenient appointment, which was not really our fault.

Mr. Grimond: From the Minister's earlier Answer, are we to understand that in September it was arranged to have this meeting in January, which was before the Secretary of State was ill, and is it not a pity that it could not have been held rather sooner?

Mr. Fisher: No. There was never any suggestion that the meeting should be held in September because, in fact, the Bailey company did not receive the Report until November.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in April last year three of the Government-appointed directors resigned, so why was not some action taken in April of last year instead of waiting until December?

Mr. Fisher: Action was taken. As soon as those directors resigned we arranged for Mr. Muirie to investigate the books of the company. It was because of their resignation that we did that.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Apart from the the Secretary of State's illness, is not the long delay a reflection of the difficulties

we are having with a Joint Secretary of State for two Departments, with many obligations to go abroad for quite long periods for constitutional talks?

Mr. Fisher: That is another matter, and I do not think that it arises on this Question. In any case, it is not one for me. I can assure the hon. Member that no one works harder or more thoroughly than my right hon. Friend.

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Muirie Report on Bailey's Dockyard, Malta, was presented to the Colonial Office and when it was passed on to Bailey Ltd. and to the Prime Minister of Malta; why Bailey (Malta) Ltd. were only allowed about a fortnight to reply to the charges made; and how long this period was extended at the request of the Prime Minister of Malta.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Member's Question suggests that he is under a number of misapprehensions as to the facts. In the circumstances the reply is necessarily rather long and I am circulating it with the Official Report.

Sir W. Teeling: I realise that my hon. Friend may think that I am in the wrong, but is it not true that it was four months after the Report was originally produced before it reached either the Bailey company or the Prime Minister of Malta and that they were then given a fortnight in which to reply? Was this really a satisfactory and fair attitude to take when dealing with a company which had ben asked to try to save the situation in Malta?

Mr. Fisher: No. The period for receiving the company's comments on the Muirie Report was extended first to 19th December, then to 9th January, then to 21st January, and finally, to 31st January. The company was given four extensions of time in which to comment, covering a total period of more than two months and not two weeks. The requests for the extensions came from the company and not from the Prime Minister of Malta.

Sir L. Ropner: Is it not a fact that the present difficulties are being increased because it is now proving impossible to find the books relating to the company?

Mr. Fisher: My hon. and gallant Friend is perfectly correct. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Messrs. Bailey saw fit to destroy or remove all the documents and records before the Council of Administration came into operation in March.

Hon. Members: Why?

Sir W. Teeling: In view of the rather unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I should like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Following is the reply:
Mr. Muirie's Report was received on the 15th August, 1962. Copies of it were sent to the Prime Minister of Malta on the 23rd November and to the Company on the 26th November.
A notice was served on the Company under clause 7 (a) of the Financial Agreement between the Colonial Office and the Company specifying a number of particulars in which the Company were considered to be in default, and requiring the Company to remedy or make good these defaults within 30 days. This period is the period Laid down in the Agreement itself.
The period of a fortnight, to which the hon. Member refers, relates to a different point. The Company were informed that the Secretary of State intended to publish the Muirie Report in the near future and were told that if they desired to make any comments on the facts set out in the Report and would do so within a fortnight the Secretary of State would consider publishing these comments along with the Report.
The period of a fortnight was thought to be sufficient for this limited purpose. Nevertheless, extensions were granted on the Company's representations (not at the request of the Prime Minister of Malta). On the 18th January the Company's solicitors stated that interim comments would be supplied to the Secretary of State by the 21st January for deposit with the Report. No comments having been received by that date the Company were informed that their comments should be sent without fail by the 31st January and that if they were not received by that date it would be assumed that it was not the intention of the Company to comment. No comments were received by the 31st January and the Report was published without them.

Dockyard

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the first phase of the change in the Malta dockyard to commercial work has been completed; and when he expects the change to be completed.

Mr. Fisher: It is estimated that about 30 per cent. of phase one of the plan for the conversion of the dockyard has

been completed. Of the remainder, I understand that the main contract, placed jointly with George Wimpey & Co., Ltd., and the Royal Netherlands Harbour Company in February, 1962, as likely to be completed early in 1964. As regards the other works and services included in phase one, it may be possible to give a more definite estimate when the position has been reviewed by the new Council of Administration but the present estimate is that these works are not likely to be completed before the end of 1965.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Under-Secretary aware that we had a definite assurance two years ago that the first phase in the reorganisation of the dockyard in Malta would be completed this year? What is the cause of the delay? So far only one phase has been completed.

Mr. Fisher: I am afraid that the cause of the delay is that the contract was not placed soon enough. It was placed only in February, 1962, which was due almost entirely to procrastination by the firm then in charge of the dockyard.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he proposes to take in the present circumstances in Malta to maintain a steady flow of both Admiralty and civil ship repairing in the dockyard to prevent any further increase in unemployment in the island.

Mr. Fisher: It is primarily a matter for the Council of Administration to secure commercial work for the Dockyard. I can assure the hon. Member that they are well aware of the needs of the situation. As was announced on the 14th February, the First Lord proposes, subject to satisfactory contract arrangements, to send H.M.S. "Troubridge" to Malta for a major refit in the near future. There will of course also be other Admiralty work for the dockyard.

Mr. Awbery: Now that the dockyard has been taken over by the Admiralty again, will the Minister give a definite assurance that there will be no unemployment among the men working in these yards?

Mr. Fisher: The Admiralty has not taken over the running of the dockyard, which will depend in the future very largely upon commercial work, so I can give no such guarantee.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that active steps will be taken to maintain employment in the dockyard? Is he aware that the present mess that has been created there is due to the lack of judgment of the Government in relation to the contractors they made the arrangements with? Therefore, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the deteriorating serious unemployment situation in Malta is not made very greatly worse as a result of this.

Mr. Fisher: We certainly recognise responsibility for employment in Malta. The new Council of Administration hopes to maintain the level of employment in the dockyard. Whether it is able to do so or not depends to an extent on what work it can get, and on this the Council cannot express an opinion at the moment. After all, it has been in existence for only 11 days.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. KITTS

New Hospital

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a contribution from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund towards the cost of a new hospital in St. Kitts.

Mr. Fisher: This has already been agreed in principle and a detailed scheme is now being considered.

Mr. Royle: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much is to be devoted to this purpose? Can he say what will be the total cost? Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he will consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation to see whether it would be possible to secure the secondment of a sister tutor, for which I understand there is great need?

Mr. Fisher: I have not heard this, but I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation. The total cost of the hospital will be 1,700,000 British West Indian dollars. I cannot say what will be our contribution from C.D. and W. funds until the receipt of the finalised proposals which we have not yet had. I hope that the contribution will be substantial.

Mr. Royle: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "substantial"?

Mr. Fisher: I do not think that I can reveal a figure at the moment, because I have not been into the matter and have not received the scheme itself.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Following the breakdown of the Federation, can the Minister say whether grants from C.D. and W. lie directly between Her Majesty's Government and individual islands or whether they pass through some internal machinery?

Mr. Fisher: So far as I know, they lie directly between us and the smaller islands.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO AND SARAWAK

Floods

Mr. Turner: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement regarding the recent floods in North Borneo and Sarawak and the resultant loss of life and damage.

Mr. Fisher: I apologise for the length of this reply. The floods in many areas in both territories were the worst on record. I regret to say that at least 21 people are believed to have lost their lives. One British Service man was drowned.
Very serious damage has occurred to property but, as the high water had not yet receded in some areas, it cannot yet be fully assessed. At least 26,500 people have been driven from their homes and have lost their crops. In many cases their houses have been destroyed.
The two Governments, with the help of the British Services and of voluntary organisations on the spot, to which I am glad to pay the warmest tribute, took extensive and immediate relief measures; civilians were evacuated from danger areas, and food and medical supplies were rushed in, often by helicopter.
Rehabilitation plans are now being worked out, and as a first step quick-growing crops are to be planted.
I am sure the House, which has already been informed of the contributions by the British Government of $M100,000 to each territory, will wish to convey its


sympathy to those in the stricken areas and particularly to the relatives of those who have lost their lives.

Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In view of the widespread nature of the flooding and the gravity of the situation, may I ask whether it would be thought appropriate to launch a national appeal in this country so that these territories may be assisted should the local assistance from their own flood relief funds not be sufficient? Will Her Majesty's Government pay particular attention to those kampongs which have done so much in self-help, by the building of roads and other facilities, to assist in the development of these territories?

Mr. Fisher: So far, I have received no requests for further assistance. Flood relief funds have been set up locally, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows, and contributions from private people and institutions are being received and are very welcome. I understand that there is also a students' fund in this country. I will consider whether a major scheme should be launched, but it is rather a long time after the event for that to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Haushabe Sultanate

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Sultanate of Haushabe is to be included in the British Protectorate States federated with Aden Colony.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the code of human rights, which I understand will be incorporated in the Constitution for Aden, be extended to this particular area? If a slave escapes from this area and gets to Aden, is he liable to be apprehended by the agents of the Sultan?

Mr. Fisher: I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. Member for notice of those points because, frankly, I do not know the answer to them.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman will get the information for me if I send particulars by letter?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, I certainly will.

Police (Incident)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was on his authority that the Aden Police broke into Ihsan's House where the ladies were in purdah.

Mr. Fisher: As I informed the right hon. Gentleman when he wrote to me on this matter last month, the allegation that the Aden police broke into a purdah house is unfounded.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is relying on information from the High Commissioner while I am relying on information from Ihsan, and Al Asneg, the president of the People's Socialist Party, and I have as good reason for supposing the allegation to be true as he has for supposing that it is wrong? May I ask whether the police had a warrant or not?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, certainly the police inspector's action was in accordance with notice issued by the commissioner of police under the appropriate Ordinance, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The police acted perfectly properly and the facts, I assure the right hon. Member, are correct. On 8th January a police inspector went to Miss Ihsan's house and knocked at the door, which was opened by her sister who was not in purdah. Miss Ihsan was not in the house and the policeman saw no other lady, whether in purdah or not, at the time.

Franchise and Elections

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has received from the High Commissioner in Aden about the intentions of the Aden Government in regard to revising the franchise and holding elections in Aden Colony.

Mr. Fisher: I understand from the High Commissioner that the Aden Government has the revision of the franchise under consideration and hopes to formulate proposals in the next few weeks.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is still the responsibility of the House of Commons and the British Government? Can he give the House an assurance that there will be a


revision of the franchise and that elections will be held before the present year is out?

Mr. Fisher: Yes. The position is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that we have to hold elections in Aden by the end of this year. There is no intention of bringing in a delaying Order in Council or anything of that sort. However, the terms of the franchise are within the competence of the Aden State Government. Under the Aden Constitution the High Commissioner is bound to act on the advice of the Aden Council of Ministers, so we have not a very direct interest at the moment.

Yemeni Incursion

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the incursion into Aden Federal Territory of troops of the Yemen Republics; and what steps he is taking to secure a peaceful solution.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Yemeni Republican invaders of Aden Federal Territory have now been expelled or interned; and if he will make a further statement.

Mr. Fisher: As the Answer is rather long I will with permission answer this Question and No. 27 together in the form of a statement at the end of Questions.

Premises (Police Raids)

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 15th February police officers in the Colony of Aden raided the premises of the following organisations, namely, the Aden Trade Union Congress, the Itthad-el-Yameni, headquarters of the People's Socialist Party, the Al-Bath Printing Press, and the Arab Reform Club, causing inconvenience to the members of the organisations concerned; and what were the reasons for these actions.

Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir. This search was carried out to collect evidence concerning a pamphlet considered to be seditious.

Mr. Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these raids were carried out

during a religious period in Aden and that they upset the whole of the Moslem community? Is he also aware that operating in Aden is the Yemeni Royalist movement which is recruiting guerrillas to fight against the Yemeni Republican Government, yet no action is taken against organisations of that nature?

Mr. Fisher: I think that the latter part of that supplementary question had very little to do with the original Question. This search was carried out to try to identify the authors of this seditious pamphlet, many copies of which were found. It was carried out with proper authority issued by a magistrate, and I have no further comments to make about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Kuo Min-Tang Agents (Explosives and Napalm)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has received from the Government of Hong Kong concerning the dispatch from Formosa to Hong Kong of large numbers of Kuo Min-Tang agents and supplies of explosives and napalm; how many of these agents have recently been detected and detained by the Hong Kong police; and what quantities of explosive and napalm the Hong Kong police have discovered.

Mr. Fisher: The Governor of Hong Kong has reported the detention this year of 21 Kuo Min-Tang agents and the seizure of 147 lb. of explosives and 7½ lb. of napalm.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that all the activities of the Kuo Min-Tang are in fact financed by the United States Government and maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency? Will the Under-Secretary ask the Foreign Secretary to insist with the United States Government that this illegal and intolerable use of Hong Kong shall cease?

Mr. Fisher: No, I think it quite untrue that this is financed by or done with the knowledge or complicity of the United States Government. At any rate it is absolute news to me if it is so and I have no information of that kind at all. We deplore these activities and, of course, we


have made representations through such channels as are available to us to Formosa.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a matter of common knowledge that Marshal Chiang Kai-shek and his Government are financed by the United States Government and that their troops are trained by United States officers? Are we not entitled to ask that an ally shall insist that this illegal use of British-ruled territory shall come to an end?

Mr. Fisher: Whatever arrangements there may be about the finances of Formosa, this does not relate directly to the employment of these agents who, if they have government authority, must have only Formosan Government authority, not United States Government authority.

Mr. S. Silverman: Reverting to the former answer to my right hon. Friend, did I understand the Under-Secretary to say, in the first place, that what my right hon. Friend said was untrue and, in the later part of his answer, that he had no knowledge of it? Are we to infer from that answer that anything of which he has no knowledge is quite untrue? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Electricity Supply

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the main conclusions of the committee set up by the Governor of Hong Kong to consider the future of the electricity supply in the territory.

Mr. Fisher: The Commission recommended compulsory purchase of the two private undertakings which at present provide the supply and their replacement by an independent public authority.

Mr. Skeffington: As the Committee reported more than three years ago, can the Under-Secretary tell us why no action has been taken? Will he give an assurance that this is not because of narrow, doctrinaire, partisan reasons?

Mr. Fisher: No. We have sent no instructions on this matter. I understand that there is a considerable section of public opinion in Hong Kong which is opposed to nationalisation, as indeed there is in this country.

Mr. Skeffington: Would the Under-Secretary also agree that there is a very considerable and much larger proportion of the Colony which is very much in favour of it?

Mr. Fisher: I do not know about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Tati Company

Mr Probert: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the future of the Tati Company in Bechuanaland.

Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. The Tati Company, which is a large landowner in the Bechuanaland Protectorate, has recently disposed of some of its assets, but I am unable to say what its future policy will be.

Mr. Probert: Is the Under-Secretary aware that that Answer reveals, or at least implies, a dangerous state of ignorance of the present position? Is he aware that the exploitation by this company is heartily disliked in the Francistown area both by Europeans and Africans? Is he further aware that this company owns and operates electricity, water and sanitation undertakings and makes charges to ensure such a high degree of profit that it is preventing development in that area?

Mr. Fisher: I understand that relations between the Bechuanaland authorities and the company have not been very good in the past, but the position has been quite quiet for the last two years. The hon. Member is not correct in what he said about water and electricity undertakings. Previously they were operated by the company, but they are now operated by the recently established Francistown Township Authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW HEBRIDES

Condominium

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal steps would have to be taken in Britain and France to end the Condominium over the New Hebrides; and if he will recommend to the French Government that the Condominium should end.

Mr. Fisher: The legal steps would depend mainly on what was to replace the Condominium, but in Britain they would include the revocation of the Orders-in-Council giving the force of the law to the Anglo-French Protocol providing for the Condominium and to its amendments. It is not however my intention to recommend to the French Government the end of the Condominium.

Mr. Channon: Does my hon. Friend find it very easy to administer this Condominium since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations?

Mr. Fisher: I do not think that the Brussels negotiations have made any difference at all to the administration of the New Hebrides.

Constitution

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will initiate talks with the French Government about the administration of the New Hebrides; and, in particular, if he will put forward proposals for constitutional advance for the inhabitants.

Mr. Fisher: As I said in my reply on 19th February to my hon. Friend, no proposals for constitutional advance have as yet been formulated. Until they are it would be premature to initiate talks with the French Government.

Mr. Channon: Does not my hon. Friend have any proposals for the constitutional advance of this Condominium? If not, why not? Can he deny the rumours that in fact President de Gaulle proposes to reside there in due course rather than at St. Helena?

Mr. Fisher: I did form certain impressions during my recent visit to the Pacific Colonies as to the sort of changes which might suitably be contemplated, but they will need a little consideration here and it would then be necessary to discuss them with the French.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman try to do something for the Old Hebrides while he is at this?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would this Condominium be protected by the British independent deterrent, by the French independent deterrent, or by both?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION

Constitution

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in implementing the decision to form a South Arabian Federation; and what political parties have and have not now agreed to co-operate in the working of the new Constitution.

Mr. Fisher: The Federation was inaugurated in 1959 and Aden became the twelfth Member State on 18th January this year. Of the two major political parties in Aden, the United National Party is in favour of the new Constitution, while the People's Socialist Party has denounced it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Under-Secretary aware that in fact the People's Socialist Party represents a very considerable body of opinion in Aden? What has been done to try to induce this party to cooperate in the formation of a Federation? Has anything been done, for instance, to guarantee a very wide franchise?

Mr. Fisher: I answered a previous Question on the franchise earlier this afternoon. Of course, it is true that the People's Socialist Party represents a large number of people in Aden, but although that party has denounced the new Constitution it is by no means certain that it will refuse to work it or refuse to take part in the next elections in the Colony. Therefore, I think that we should wait and see how the working of the Constitution develops.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Without abandoning in any way our doubts about the present form of association between Aden Colony and the Sheikdoms of the Federation, may I ask the Under-Secretary to assure the House that, in order to promote democratic development in the Sheikdoms, he will be generous in giving them social and economic aid?

Mr. Fisher: That is certainly our objective and we wish to encourage those trends.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWAZILAND

Pine Forest (C.D.C. and Courtaulds)

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give the financial arrangements between


the Colonial Development Corporation and Courtaulds, in relation to the permission given to the Usuto Pulp Company to utilise the 95,000 acres of pine forest in Swaziland.

Mr. Fisher: The issued ordinary share capital of the company of £5·5 million is held equally by the Colonial Development Corporation and Courtaulds, £150,000 of 7½ per cent. preference shares is held equally by the Corporation, Courtaulds and the Swazi nation. The Corporation has also provided secured loan capital of £5·25 million.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that this agreement is fair to Swaziland? Is he aware that the C.D.C. was financially responsible for this man-made forest of 95,000 acres? Could he tell us whether there is going to be any reafforestation of this area and any further afforestation at all in Swaziland? What contribution would the Usuto Pulp Company make towards those two efforts?

Mr. Fisher: It is perfectly well known that it is C.D.C. policy to go into partnership with private enterprise on these sort of ventures if it is possible. It is not really a question of the pulp company having permission to utilise these forests. The company planted the trees and grew the pines and is now proceeding to pulp them.

Sir G. Nicholson: My hon. Friend did not quite answer the Question asked by the hon. Member for the Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) about reafforestation. Is the continuous existence of these forests to be guaranteed?

Mr. Fisher: I do not know whether it is to be guaranteed. That is why I did not answer the hon. Gentleman, but I will give my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman an answer as soon as I have looked into the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER, PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister if he will take the initiative to convene a Western summit conference covering economic and political affairs between himself, President Kennedy and President de Gaulle.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. I do not think this is the best way of proceeding at the present time.

Mr. Ginsburg: Would the Prime Minister confirm a recent statement of the British Ambassador in the United States that it is the intention of the President and the Prime Minister to meet to discuss new developments in Europe? If so, would it not be more realistic to proceed with the meeting with the French President present?

The Prime Minister: I do not know. No such meeting has been arranged, but I will bear what the hon. Member says in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES (RANK)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Prime Minister in which Departments the Parliamentary Secretary, or equivalent, ranks below the Permanent Secretary.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. A Parliamentary Secretary is directly responsible to his Minister.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Could it be made absolutely clear that a Parliamentary Secretary, who is a Member of this honourable House, does, in fact, deputise for the Minister and ranks next to him? Owing to the title of "Parliamentary Secretary" and the inferior salary he earns there is a certain amount of confusion in the public mind about him not being absolutely next to the Minister?

The Prime Minister: I think that there have been Questions asked on this subject before. I think, also, That this is a matter which is now very clear and it is, of course, true that the Parliamentary Secretary is a Minister; not a Minister of the Crown under the constitution because he is not appointed by the Queen. There are a few Departments where it has been the practice to print "Permanent Secretary" after the Minister, and I hope to take steps to make all the Departments follow a uniform practice.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is still the custom in the Admiralty for the Chair to be taken when the First Lord is absent


by the First Sea Lord and not by the Civil Lord or the Parliamentary Secretary?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that that is the case.

Hon. Members: Why?

The Prime Minister: It is a matter of custom. It always has been so.

Mr. Manuel: It is a bad custom.

Sir W. Teeling: In view of the fact that both in the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Office the Minister of State is in the other place and that on many occasions the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Ministers of State are constantly abroad, is it not clear that the Under-Secretary in each case is entirely responsible?

The Prime Minister: Constitutionally, of course, the Parliamentary Secretary, theoretically, cannot give orders to the Permanent Secretary. If there were some division of opinion, then that must be resolved only by the Minister. Apart from that, he normally deputises for the Minister.

Mr. H. Wilson: While most Ministers lay down rules as to the functions of the Parliamentary Secretaries, would the Prime Minister make it clear that in cases where the Minister is abroad or is ill the Parliamentary Secretaries are, in fact, Ministerially in charge of the office, save only for the normal position that where a Cabinet post is involved another Cabinet Minister is designated as the individual responsible for bringing their cases before the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: That is the normal practice but, as the right hon. Member knows, constitutionally the Permanent Secretary is responsible for the organisation and discipline of his Department and he has the right for any question to be settled by the Minister in charge of his Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what discussions are proposed between the President of France, Presi-

dent Kennedy and himself to decide who should be responsible within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the use of nuclear weapons if the need arises.

The Prime Minister: These questions are for decision by the North Atlantic Council as a whole.

Mr. Rankin: But surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell us something about what is going on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Why not? Is it not the case that the American Government are suggesting that each of the N.A.T.O. countries should have the right of veto in the event on the use of the nuclear weapon? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in the long run that means that America will control the use of the weapon in Europe and in America? Would not that be more of an advantage than the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of a majority decision which would increase the number of fingers on the trigger instead of keeping the number as at present?

The Prime Minister: There are, as the House knows, proposals which will be discussed at the next meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council and I think that I would rather leave the matter there.

Mr. H. Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman does that, and quite apart from future discussions which he may have with the President, may I ask whether he could answer a question which I have previously put to him? It is whether this question of consultation about the use of the nuclear deterrent came up in the discussions in the Bahamas. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still a great deal of anxiety about this question of consultation during the Cuba period? Would he say whether, either in N.A.T.O. or in bilateral discussions, any thought is being given to the proposal of the American Minister, Mr. Finletter, that there should be a consensus of opinion agreed in advance on the sort of circumstances in which the West might have to consider using the nuclear deterrent?

The Prime Minister: As far as I know, there are no proposals under consideration in N.A.T.O. for placing nuclear warheads under the independent control of a non-nuclear Power. But there are to


be discussions as to how N.A.T.O. as a whole could be more closely associated with the major policies.

Mr. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has read the wrong supplementary answer to the supplementary question, could I remind him what the question was? Did he discuss this matter at the Bahama Conference with the President? His answer had no bearing on that. Secondly, is there any discussion going on on Mr. Finletter's proposal about settling the consensus?

The Prime Minister: On the first part, what I discussed with the President is included in the communiqué, and I have nothing to add to it. As to the second question, there are broad discussions going on as to various plans but they are all at the moment very much in embryo.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy that the scientific advisers of both governments should consider and report on the minimum number of automatic "black box" recording instruments and on-site inspections necessary annually in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, respectively, to ensure the adequate policing of a test ban treaty, together with the actual methods of carrying out such inspections.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there is close co-operation and consultation on these matters between Her Majesty's Government's scientific advisers and those of the United States Government. The benefits of these continuing exchanges are reflected in the advice they tender at any time. The present Western position on the issues referred to in the Question is no exception and I do not think that any special measures are called for.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the present deadlock due to the fact that the Soviet Government insist on three on-site inspections whereas the United States Government desire seven or eight? Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider proposing both to President Kennedy and Mr. Khrushchev that the number of automatic seismic stations should be increased

to nine or ten whereas the proposed number of on-site inspections should be reduced from seven or eight to four or five?

The Prime Minister: All these matters, of course, are for negotiation. The present position, as I understand, is that Mr. Kuznetsov has returned to Moscow and is discussing certain suggestions which have been made for a settlement. I am hoping that it will be reached satisfactorily.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC ADVISER

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister to what extent the services of the Economic Adviser to Her Majesty's Government are available to himself and to Ministers generally.

The Prime Minister: The services of the Economic Adviser to the Government are freely available to myself and to other Ministers. Naturally, since he is a member of the Treasury, his advice is primarily tendered through the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Economic Adviser was used as an expert witness at the National Incomes Commission? If the Government are going to express the gloomy view that the N.E.D.C. growth target cannot be readied by 1966, would it not be better if the Prime Minister himself or the Chancellor went to the Commission and said so?

The Prime Minister: I think that there is a Question on the Order Paper on the evidence given by Professor Cairncross and I would ask the hon. Member to await the reply to that specific Question. There is a verbatim report of the proceedings in the Library.

Mr. Shinwell: How can the Prime Minister account for things having gone wrong and for such a high rate of unemployment when he has so much economic advice?

The Prime Minister: There is an Economic Adviser and a panel of sixteen economists.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (UNEMPLOYMENT)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister when a statement will be made on the further measures to be taken to relieve the unemployment situation in Scotland; and whether, when this statement is made, Her Majesty's Government will indicate which are short-term measures designed to produce speedy results and which are long-term measures for the encouragement of future growth.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answers which I gave him on 12th February and other hon. Members on 14th February.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman be more specific and tell us exactly when he will come forward with the proposals, because the longer he delays the worse the situation becomes? Can he also tell the House how many of these economic advisers are available to advise him on the Scottish economy? Clearly he is in need of some advice. Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman has had some advice from the Scottish T.U.C., from the Scottish Council and from hon. Members on both sides of the House and that he takes no notice of any of it?

The Prime Minister: The Scottish T.U.C. asked that unemployment benefit should be increased. It was increased the next day.

Mr. Ross: Before the Prime Minister makes a statement, will he read a report on the Scottish economy written by a Professor Cairncross in 1952?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will certainly do so.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what form the statement will take? Will it be given by the right hon. Gentleman himself or by the President of the Board of Trade, or will he allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to have a word or two on the Scottish economy?

The Prime Minister: There are a number of things which we have already done and there are other measures we have in contemplation. When they are ready and decided they will be announced in the most convenient way.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERIES (CLOSURE)

Miss Herbison: asked the Prime Minister who is responsible for coordinating the activities of the Minister of Power, the Minister of Labour, the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Scotland, with a view to ensuring that no further communities are left derelict by large-scale closure of collieries.

The Prime Minister: There is regular and frequent consultation between all Ministers concerned with fostering the growth of the economy; and the social implications of economic changes are taken fully into account.

Miss Herbison: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that these consultations are leading to results? Is he not aware that in one area where massive pit closures have already taken place 70 per cent. of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for over eight weeks? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in another area, the Caldercruix and Greengairs area, where two pits are to be closed very soon, the rate of unemployment is 11·7 per cent. for men? Is he aware that the Coal Board has said that there is no possibility of those men who are to become redundant getting jobs? Does not this show that there must be greater coordination and one Minister held responsible?

The Prime Minister: I would remind the hon. Lady that when in July the announcements were made of the closures that would be necessary either because of the working-out of the seams or because of their uneconomic character, a number of measures were taken. Special
arrangements were made by the Board for placing men in other employment. There were the development of a new industrial estate at Donibristle, the provision of an advance factory, the acquisition of five new sites for future industrial development, the building of a number of advance factories and assistance under the Local Employment Act for the Bathgate-Livingstone area. In addition the Minister of Labour is opening two new Government training centres in Scotland, one at Motherwell and the other at Dunfermline.

Miss Herbison: In spite of these announcements made by the Government, may I ask the Prime Minister to recognise the very serious nature of unemployment in these areas, both in Fifeshire and in


Lanarkshire? The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is so serious that greater steps must be taken and much more urgency must be shown by the Government if any improvement is to take place.

The Prime Minister: I quite understand the problem. These were not pronouncements by the Government, but projects which are now being proceeded with. We have others in mind and when we have had a review of these matters an announcement will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Lord President of the Council in Glasgow on 16th February on the subject of relations between Great Britain and France represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Lipton: In addition to endorsing the Lord President's abuse of General de Gaulle for bad faith and bad manners, may I ask whether the Prime Minister also agreed with the Lord President when he said that he was tired of seeing his colleagues kicked around by the Opposition? Is the Prime Minister tired, too?

The Prime Minister: I think that my noble Friend must have been referring to the activities of the Labour Party in another place.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange speedily for Parliamentary reform so that the noble Lord may come here to be kicked around as well?

The Prime Minister: If my noble Friend were to avail himself of any legislation, should such legislation be carried, he would, I think, be a great addition to this House, just as so many of the right hon. Gentleman's friends have been willing to accept my nomination to the other House.

ADEN (YEMENI INCURSION)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. G. M. THOMSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the latest posi-

tion regarding the incursion into Aden Federal territory of troops of the Yemen Republic; and what steps he is taking to secure a peaceful solution.

Mr. BIGGS-DAVISON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Yemeni Republican invaders of Aden Federal territory have now been expelled or interned; and if he will make a further statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 23 and 27.
The High Commissioner for Aden reported three days ago that the Yemeni force had been strengthened and was believed to number about 300 soldiers and tribesmen armed with mortars and machine-guns. Her Majesty's Government were asked by the Federal authorities to assist them, in accordance with our Treaty obligations, to resist this armed trespass on Federal territory. We were fully conscious of these Treaty obligations, and moreover we could not allow Federal territory to be used by one side in the Yemeni civil war as a springboard for an attack upon the other side. This would have been entirely contrary to our declared policy of non-involvement.
To give the Yemeni authorities ample opportunity to withdraw their force without the need for further measures, arrangements were made for a message to be conveyed to the Republican authorities in Sana by the representative of a friendly Power. It was our hope that orders would then be given to the Yemeni force to withdraw across the frontier, along the way they had come.
The broadcast by the Republican authorities in Sana on 20th February showed that they were aware of my statement in this House on the 19th and that they intended to take no notice. Their reinforcement of the intruding party during the following days could, therefore, only be interpreted as a deliberate challenge.
In the absence of any indication that the Yemenis would move out of their own accord, the High Commissioner was authorised to issue a local warning to the intruding force and this was delivered in the form of leaflets at twelve minutes past eight o'clock local time this morning.


The warning contained an assurance that if the Yemenis left their positions and withdrew from Federal territory, they would not be attacked, but that if they ignored the warning then all necessary measures would be taken to eject them by force.
Members of the Yemeni force were seen to read the warning leaflets. Precisely three hours later, when the ultimatum set in the leaflet expired with no indication of any intention of withdrawal, fire was opened upon the Yemeni positions by artillery. At half-past eleven a defiant message was received from the local Yemeni commander claiming that his force was within Yemeni territory. Artillery fire ceased at 11.40 and armoured cars of the Federal Regular Army moved forward to reconnoitre.
The High Commissioner has just told us that his latest reports tend to indicate that the Yemeni force has in the main withdrawn from the bed of the valley which they were occupying in Federal territory.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boundary between the Republic of the Yemen and the Aden territory in that part of the world is very vague and undecided? The statement he has made is a very disturbing one in many respects. Would it not be far better for Her Majesty's Government to try to reopen normal diplomatic channels between the Republic of the Yemen and themselves and try to solve the dispute by peaceful means? Also, will he say why not more than three hours' notice of the ultimatum was given?

Mr. Fisher: Great care was taken to check the precise position of the Yemenis and to establish beyond doubt that they were in Federal territory.
As to the question of recognition and British representation in Sana, it win be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection that it was the wish of the Yemeni Republican authorities that we should withdraw our representative, which we did in accordance with their wishes.
When the hon. Gentleman says that too little time was given, he should remember that this Yemeni force arrived on our frontier on 29th January, four weeks ago. They fired on a patrol of

the Federal guard which was sent to investigate their presence there, and one of our guards was killed. On 5th February they opened fire on a detachment of the Federal Regular Army. This is the background to this border incident. Quite honestly, while I would accept the criticism that we had been over-cautious and, perhaps, even a little dilatory in ejecting them from our territory, I should find it difficult to accept the criticism that we had been over-precipitate.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend's statement makes clear that Her Majesty's Government have shown very great patience. Do the Government realise that they have the full support of very many people in the House and the country if they now do whatever is necessary to defend the integrity of territory for which we have treaty responsibilities?

Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He expresses a point of view to which I myself subscribe. We have exercised every restraint in the face of Yemeni provocation, at some risk, indeed, of losing the confidence of the people in the Federation whom we are pledged to protect.

Mr. Thomson: What reply, if any, was received to the approach in Sana made on our behalf by a friendly Power? Who was the friendly Power acting on our behalf, and what further steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to establish diplomatic negotiations with the Republic of the Yemen to achieve a peaceful solution of these disputes?

Mr. Fisher: No reply at all has been received from the Yemeni authorities, although we know, from the fact that they knew of my statement in the House last week, that they are perfectly aware of our attitude. The friendly Power through whom we sent the message was the American Government.

Mrs. Castle: Is not our refusal to recognise the Government of the Yemen an act of provocation on our part? Are not we almost alone among the Western Powers in refusing recognition of this kind, and is not our action quite contrary to that of, for example, the United States, Western Germany, and other responsible Western Powers? Is it not absurd that we should in this way cut ourselves off


from normal friendly diplomatic contact with a Government whose territory runs so dangerously close to ours? Are not we asking for trouble by doing this?

Mr. Fisher: If I have explained it once in the House, I must have said it four or five times. Our criterion of recognition in the case of the Yemen is precisely the same as it has always been in every other case, that we always recognise when we see that a Government are in effective control of the great part of the country. This is not so in the Yemen. We are being perfectly consistent with our own policy of recognition in all previous cases.

Mr. Healey: Is it not a fact that, when we discussed this matter last week, the hon. Gentleman admitted that he had not the slightest idea what military activity was going on in the territories of the Aden Protectorate when I asked him whether it was the case, as widely reported, that the Sheikh of Beihan had been giving military assistance to one side in the civil war in the Yemen?
Does the reference in the hon. Gentleman's statement to the undesirability of British-protected territory being used as a springboard by one side in the civil war mean that he now concedes that the Sheikh of Beihan was giving support to the Royalists and that he has persuaded the Sheikh to cease giving this support?

Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. I said nothing of the sort last week. I said merely that, if the Sharif of Beihan was giving any assistance to the Royalist cause, this was being done without our knowledge or authority. That was all I said.

Mr. Healey: That is the point; the hon. Gentleman did not know.

Mr. Fisher: No; it is not that I did not know what was happening. I have myself no evidence to show that this assistance is, in fact, being given. Indeed, when we asked the Yemeni Government, who had complained, as

the hon. Gentleman is now complaining, whether they had any evidence of assistance from Beihan for the Royalists, they produced no evidence whatever.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Minister, first, whether there are still any British nationals or British-protected persons in the Yemen, and, if so, whether he is satisfied about their safety? Secondly, apart from the one casualty he mentioned, is he aware of any other casualties in the fighting? What is our position in the Yemen? Have we just broken off diplomatic relations, or are we in some kind of state of emergency or war?

Mr. Fisher: We have no diplomatic representation in the Yemen at all. I am not sure whether there are any British subjects of a non-official type left in the Yemen. I think that there may be a few, but, if so, they can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. I have no information about casualties which may have been incurred during this morning's local fighting.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the main administrative centres are in the hands of the Republicans? In those circumstances, will he reconsider his refusal to recognise the new Republic and, instead, recognise it forthwith?

Mr. Fisher: No, Sir. As I said last week, many, but not all, of the larger towns in the Yemen are in the hands of the Republican authorities. On the other hand, the whole periphery of the country—all the mountainous areas and all the tribal areas, which are probably larger geographically than the town areas in the middle and certainly larger vis-à-vis population—is in Royalist hands. It is, therefore, impossible to say that the Republicans have complete control of the country, and, as I have said again and again, that is the criterion of our recognition of a Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]

PRIVATE HOUSE OWNERS (PROTECTION)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect private house owners from the consequences of sub-standard building; to make compulsory the registration of all building firms; and to provide that such firms shall take out insurance policies to compensate private house owners for work not completed owing to bankruptcy.
I hope that the House will agree to this Motion so that the Bill may go forward to a Second Reading and into Committee. It deals with the problem of jerry building, which in recent years has become a national scandal.
When last I had the privilege of addressing the House on this subject, I was able to give evidence, covering wide areas of the country, concerning large estates where many hundreds of houses had as many as 20 or 30 sub-standard jobs in each house of them. I was able to give an example from my constituency of a house which had broken in half whose builder had gone bankrupt and the purchaser, tied with a mortgage for twenty years, had no house in which to live. I was able to give examples from Yorkshire of large estates where scores of houses had doors which would not close and windows which would not open and the purchasers had been compelled to spend hundreds of pounds to make their houses waterproof. I was able to give examples of estates in Lancashire where similar conditions prevailed.
I could now give the House, if I had time, evidence of estate after estate in the south of England where this sort of thing has happened. I could refer to an estate in Surrey where the whole plumbing system had to be taken out and rebuilt because it was defective through the low water pressure. The house owner had to meet this additional expense. I could give examples of quite expensive houses in the south of England whose outside bricks had been plastered over with cheap cement to cover up inferior bricks.
I could give examples of young married couples in recent months occupying their houses and finding that the water system was completely frozen up and unusable and the house uninhabitable. A widow living just outside London had to spend as much as £700 to deal with a leaking roof. She spent £100 during the first month of her occupation, and over £800 over a period of six years. She had no redress because the builder had gone bankrupt.
The proposed Bill does not deal with a trivial matter; it is not a frivolous Bill. It deals with a very important series of complaints from large sections of the community. It deals particularly with the heartbreaking problems of young married couples about to occupy their own house for the first time who have spent all their savings on the down payment, have gone through the largest monetary transaction they will go through in their lives and find themselves involved in very heavy extra expense that they cannot really meet. A period which should be a period of joy, happiness and fulfilment far too often becomes a period of disappointment, disillusionment and frustration.
Something needs to be done to deal with this urgent problem. In my modest Bill, I suggest that the problem of jerrybuilding can be checked by simple legislation. In my opinion, what is required is compulsory registration of all house building firms. They should be registered with the local authority. If a number of complaints of jerry-building and substandard work are made against them, the local authority would have power to withdraw the registration. The very fact that they were registered with the local authority would give the authority the power to check the building of a house at every stage.
Local authorities do not have this power today. If building firms were registered, the building surveyor employed by the local council could check the design, the drains, the quality of the timber which goes into the building, the bricks and the plaster. It could make all the checks which were needed so that a house buyer would get the kind of house which he thought he was purchasing when he first looked at the design and received the report from his building society, bank, insurance company, or from whoever he dealt with in the purchase of the house.
The proposed Bill would compel house-builders to apply as a minimum the standards of the National House-builders Registration Council. These are decent minimum standards which, if applied, would, to a large extent, deal with the problem of sub-standard building. The Bill would also compel house builders to take out insurance against bankruptcy.
Every year, over 300 house builders go bankrupt. Many of the houses which they build are sub-standard, some are only half built, but the purchasers have no redress in law. There are many thou-stands of cases of this character. There is a real gap in our law which needs to be filled and I hope that the House will give sympathetic consideration to this reasonable Measure.
The problem is an important one. Thousands of people are requesting that their Members of Parliament should do something to check the exploitation that goes on. Mainly, it is a problem of the small builders, many of whom are ignorant of building standards. There are, however, other difficulties created by the new private estate developers who are in the housing business to make cheap profits and to exploit the community.
The reputable building firms support the principles embodied in this simple Measure and so, also, do the trade unions operating in the building industry. It is an all-party Bill which has the support of all parties in the House of Commons and I hope that hon. Members will give it sympathetic support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, Mr. Darling, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Abse, Mr. Monslow, Mr. Owen, Mr. Milne, Mr. Rankin. Mrs. Emmet, and Mr. Lubbock.

PRIVATE HOUSE OWNERS (PROTECTION)

Bill to protect private house owners from the consequences of sub-standard building; to make compulsory the registration of all building firms; and to provide that such firms shall take out insurance policies to compensate private house owners for work not completed owing to bankruptcy, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 17th May and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[6th ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATE FOR THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, 1963–64

(VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,654,095,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964, viz:—

CIVIL ESTIMATES


CLASS I




£


1.
House of Lords
97,000


2.
House of Commons
580,000


3.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
1,500,000


4.
Privy Council Office
17,000


5.
Post Office Ministers
2,500


6.
Customs and Excise
7,200,000


7.
Inland Revenue
21,000,000


8.
Exchequer and Audit Department
280,000


9.
Civil Service Commission
258,000


10.
Royal Commissions, etc.
250,000


CLASS II


1.
Foreign Service
11,750,000


2.
Foreign Grants and Loans
12,300,000


3.
British Council
1,554,000


4.
Commonwealth Relations Office
7,530,000


5.
Commonwealth Grants and Loans
9,090,000


6.
Colonial Office
3,298,000


7.
Colonial Grants and Loans
5,900,000


8.
Development and Welfare (Colonial Office)
5,800,000


9.
Department of Technical Cooperation
12,000,000


10.
Central African Office
935,000


11.
Development and Welfare (Central African Office)
650,000


12.
Commonwealth War Graves Commission
405,000


CLASS III


1.
Home Office
2,600.000


2.
Scottish Home and Health Department
780,000


3.
Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
4,200,000


4.
Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)
231,000


5.
Police, England and Wales
24,650,000


6.
Police, Scotland
170,000

£


7.
Prisons, England and Wales
8,500,000


8.
Prisons, Scotland
800,000


9.
Child Care, England and Wales
2,084,000


10.
Child Care, Scotland
200,000


11.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
100


12.
County Courts
216,000


13.
Legal Aid Fund
1,500,000


14.
Law Charges
295,000


15.
Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
111,000


16.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
31,000


CLASS IV


1.
Board of Trade
2.230,000


2.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading, etc., Services)
3,800,000


3.
Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
9,000,000


4.
Export Credits
100


5.
Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)
100


6.
Ministry of Labour
8,904,000


7.
Ministry of Aviation
90,000,000


8.
Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
12,500,000


9.
Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
4,000,000


10.
Ministry of Transport
1,599,000


11.
Roads, etc., England and Wales
55,000,000


12.
Roads, etc., Scotland
5,500,000


13.
Transport (Shipping and Special Services)
323,000


14.
Transport (Railways and Waterways Board)
60,000,000


15.
Ministry of Power
1,100,000


CLASS V


1.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
7,800,000


2.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
3,000,000


3.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
50,000,000


4.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
4,300,000


5.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
74,000,000


6.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
8,000,000


7.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)
5,500,000


8.
Food (Strategic Reserves)
800,000


9.
Fishery Grants and Services
1,900,000


10.
Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,100,000


11.
Forestry Commission
4,600,000

CLASS VI




£


1.
Ministry of Housing and Local Government
4,500,000


2.
Scottish Development Department
910,000


3.
Housing, England and Wales
28,000,000


4.
Housing, Scotland
9,000,000


5.
General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
188,663,000


6.
General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
21,375,000


7.
Rate Deficiency, etc., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
47,126,000


8.
Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
6,948,000


9.
Ministry of Education
45,000,000


10.
Scottish Education Department
9,480,000


11.
Ministry of Education (Teachers' Superannuation)
100


12.
Scottish Education Department (Teachers' Superannuation)
100


13.
Ministry of Health
1,550,000


14.
National Health Service etc. (Hospital Services, etc.), England and Wales
156,300,000


15.
National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales
54,000,000


16.
Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales
14,079,000


17.
National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), England and Wales
100


18.
National Health Service, etc., Scotland
29,000,000


19.
National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland
100


20.
Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
2,800,000


21.
National Insurance
73,250,000


22.
Family Allowances
49,500,000


23.
National Assistance Board.
77,500,000


24.
War Pensions, etc
38,750,000


CLASS VII


1.
Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain
36,000,000


2.
Office of the Minister for Science
50,000


3.
Atomic Energy
40,000,000


4.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
6,700,000


5.
Medical Research Council
2,450,000


6.
Agricultural Research Council
2,462.000


7.
Nature Conservancy
250,000


8.
Grants for Science
175,000


Class VIII


1.
British Museum
481,000


2.
British Museum (Natural History)
220,000


3.
Science Museum
125,000


4.
Victoria and Albert Museum
225,000


5.
Imperial War Museum
27,000


6.
London Museum
20,000


7.
National Gallery
169,000

£


8.
National Maritime Museum
40,000


9.
National Portrait Gallery
16,000


10.
Tate Gallery
56,000


11.
Wallace Collection
20,000


12.
Royal Scottish Museum
50,000


13.
National Galleries of Scotland
47,000


14.
National Library of Scotland
46,000


15.
National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland
13,000


16.
Grants for the Arts
2,000,000


Class IX


1.
Ministry of Public Building and Works
8,780,000


2.
Public Buildings, &amp;c., United Kingdom
13,663,000


3.
Public Buildings Overseas
1,772,000


4.
Works and Buildings for the Admiralty
6,507,000


5.
Works and Buildings for the War Office
20,631,000


6.
Works and Buildings for the Air Ministry
15,815,000


7.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
158,000


8.
Royal Palaces
260,000


9.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
457,000


10.
Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
443,000


11.
Rates on Government Property
11,500,000


12.
Stationery and Printing
8,200,000


13.
Central Office of Information
2,050,000


14.
Government Actuary
19,000


15.
Government hospitality
70,000


16.
Civil Superannuation, &amp;c.
15,350,000


17.
Post Office Superanuation, &amp;c.
100


CLASS X


1.
Charity Commission
95,000


2.
Crown Estate Office
58,000


3.
Friendly Societies Registry
42,000


4.
Royal Mint
100


5.
National Debt Office
100


6.
Public Works Loan Commission
100


7.
Public Trustee
100


8.
Land Registry
100


9.
War Damage Commission
90,000


10.
Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements
50,000


11.
Ordnance Survey
1,253,000


12.
Public Record Office
62,000


13.
Scottish Record Office
23,000


14.
Registrar General's Office
270,000


15.
Registrar General's Office, Scotland
31,000


16.
Department of the Registers of Scotland
100


17.
National Savings Committee
480,000


CLASS XI


1.
Broadcasting
17,100,000


2.
Carlisle State Management District
100


3.
State Management Districts, Scotland
100


4.
Pensions, &amp;c. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
3,636,000

£


5.
Supplements to Pensions, &amp;c. (Overseas Services)
750,000


6.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &amp;c
400,000


7.
Irish Land Purchase Services
565,000


8.
Development Fund
600,000


9.
Secret Service
3,000,000


10.
Miscellaneous Expenses
220,000



Total for Civil Estimates
1,647,495,100



Ministry of Defence
6,600,000



Total for Civil Estimates and Estimate for the Ministry of Defence
1,654,095,100

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

3.54 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I indicate the possible extent of debate in to-day's proceedings. As the Committee will be aware, the subject announced for today's debate is town and country planning. The Committee will also be aware that there were published yesterday the text of the Government's Town and Country Planning Bill, together with a White Paper entitled "London—Employment: Housing: Land", in the course of which the proposals of the Government's Bill are referred to.
It is an old and established rule and practice that matters which involve legislation may not be raised in Committee of Supply. It seems to me, however, that it would be difficult for the Committee to debate the subject of town and country planning today without reference to legislation, which might at times become somewhat more extensive than such incidental reference as has usually been permitted. I would, therefore, if I have the assent of the Committee, be prepared to allow such reference, provided that hon. Members do not go into too great detail on any proposal which would involve legislation.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I hope, Sir Robert, that I will not find myself trespassing very much in the sphere of new legislation, because it would be a pity if the debate developed into a Second Reading discussion of the Town


and Country Planning Bill, which, no doubt, we will be having later in the Session. There is quite enough to talk about in town planning and quite enough in the White Paper to keep us occupied in the few hours at our disposal without getting very far into the special problem of the control of office accommodation, which is one of the subjects touched upon in the White Paper.
I wish to thank the Minister, because he must have pressed to get the White Paper published in time for us to read it in tolerable comfort before this debate. I certainly took advantage of that to read it hurriedly. It left on my mind rather the feeling that having spent long hours of deep thought and research, the Minister had published a White Paper saying that he had come to the conclusion that planning should be based upon the assumption that the earth was round. It was one of those important assumptions which ought to be made, but which most of us have been making for some years.
When I went home and turned on my radio, I found that Mr. Peter Self, the chairman of the Town and Country Planning Association, was also talking about the White Paper and saying that it was all much too late. I came down to breakfast this morning, opened my newspapers and found that virtually all of them were saying precisely the same. It is a great comfort to find oneself so well supported, but it is rather difficult to make a speech because everybody naturally assumes that one has merely cribbed it from The Times.
With one or two exceptions, I regard most of the White Paper as being welcome. I do not propose to say anything about those sections of it which deal with housing, because we have had a good many discussions on housing in London and I have no doubt that we will have a good many more. I would rather consider some of the assumptions behind the White Paper and ask questions about its planning features.
I welcome the idea that south-east regional planning is an essential approach. I am glad that the Minister has a body—it is rather obscure just who it is—which is doing intensive investigation and inquiry into the whole of the southeastern region in transport, employment

and housing. Of course, the Minister is right. Everybody has known for a long time that all these problems must be considered together before any of the vital questions can be answered.
I hope that the Minister will tell us something about how that is being done. One of the difficulties that occurs to me is that this vital moment in the history of London planning is the one moment when there is no planning authority in London. We are in the process of winding up the two old planning authorities, the two county councils, and we are in process of creating at least one new planning authority plus the new boroughs, which, I gather, will have planning responsibilities.
I did my best to refresh myself with the discussion in Standing Committee F about what has been happening concerning London planning to find out what was the most up-to-date decision, but I am still left in considerable confusion about what will happen. My impression was that there are at present no planning authorities and that if there were any, they would not know what their powers were. Until the Minister issues his orders making clear what is to be the allocation of powers, even the new planning authorities, who will be engaged for some time in getting themselves reorganised and getting their staff recruited after the retreat away from London which has been taking place since the Government's proposals were originally announced, will be left in uncertainty as to their powers. Therefore, I presume that the Government are doing the job of planning for London—the effective, creative job.
It is important to know who is. Is there a joint committee of Government Departments? What steps are being taken to bring together such Departments as the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Education—and others—in this tremendous job?
No one can challenge the statement in the White Paper that the problems of London are insoluble without a great deal of dispersal. Again, that is something that everyone has known for many years. What alarms me even more, however, is paragraph 58. Very typical of the right hon. Gentleman's literary style, which


always starts in headlines and ends in platitudes, it says:
Dispersal of both population and employment right away from London must be an important objective in the overall strategy of providing for London's needs. The scale on which it will be needed and the extent to which it can be considered practicable cannot be established under the South-East Study is completed.
What has been happening over the past ten years? Has no one been asking himself how, where and when the population of London can be dispersed? Was there no thought about this until the right hon. Gentleman assumed office? The paragraph goes on:
But it could not begin to provide substantial relief until towards the end of the period.
I understand that the word "period" means, in this connection, ten years. In other words, we are faced with the alarming proposition that for the past ten years nothing has been done effectively to mobilise the forces making for dispersal and that it is to be another ten years before those forces even begin to be effective.
In the meantime, what is happening? Apart from more intensive development within the area, there has been a concentration, as we are told in the next paragraph, on the present new and expanded towns. But there have been no new new towns. I recognise that the original conception by the Reith Committee of a 60,000 population limit for a new town was probably a conservative estimate. It is certainly true that a young and vigorous population in a new town, enjoying life there and full of the forward-looking excitement of being in a new town, means that there is a tremendous momentum to increasing population not only naturally—which is welcome—but also by people such as relatives being attracted there.
There has been tremendous pressure to expand the new towns, but it is most undesirable that, in addition to the natural increase, there should be this artificial pressure on them to take in more population from outside. The attitude of the Government is, "We are in a jam. We cannot solve London's problems because we have not any new new towns and other outlets, so we will put the pressure on you quickly to take a larger popu-

lation until our long-term proposals can begin to take effect in ten years' time".
In other words, the new towns are inevitably suffering from having to be expanded at a very rapid and artificial rate. That is in the nature of a new town at first, but this is now the time when these people should be able to settle down and mature. Yet they are finding themselves under pressure to increase the population not naturally, but artificially, by taking more and more people from outside. It is a great condemnation of the Government's policy that that should be necessary.
I think it wise of the Government to have the Flemming inquiry into the dispersal of civil servants. Again, it is astonishing that this has never been done before. We have had so many debates in the House about the need to disperse population and the advantages of decentralising Government Departments. To say that only now is it necessary to bring in a retired civil servant to find out to what extent it is possible to make it effective is an astounding confession of administrative bankruptcy.
What are the limits of the terms of reference of Sir Gilbert Flemming? Suppose he thinks that in order to get any substantial movement of civil servants, Parliament should go out of London. Will he be allowed to suggest that Parliament should move to York? It would be an interesting suggestion to consider, because I often feel that dispersal is always for everyone else except oneself. People are very good at saying, "Your department should go to the north of Scotland and your business should go to Lancashire, but, unfortunately, my profession means that I have to work within five miles of Piccadilly Circus."
It may well be that the Minister could reach immortality by being a latter day Moses and leading us on a pilgrimage to York to settle there and take with us not only the legislative machinery but all the pressure groups and Departments which surround us. We are told that the right hon. Gentleman is always looking for new ideas. Perhaps he will consider this contribution.
All this adds up to a shocking story because behind it is the statement, so casually dropped in the White Paper, that


we are facing a situation in which there are 900 to 1,000 homeless families in London. That is only symptomatic of the much deeper and more alarming problem, in terms of size, of bad housing, with so many people with families unable to get decent accommodation. This whole situation is reflected by the homeless families.
That is the result not of the Minister having been in office for only a few months—the Government cannot get away with that one—but of twelve years of Conservative Government and failure to deal with this problem. This White Paper is one of the most shocking confessions of complete failure to tackle London's housing problems that we could have had.
There are only two alternative before the right hon. Gentleman. Either he can resign, or he can shoot the Home Secretary. Personally, I would not want to guide his judgment on the matter, but we cannot allow him to use this string of plausible platitudes—which, no doubt, will inspire many people to say what a vigorous Minister we have—to hide the fact that over the years nothing has been done by successive Ministers. This is despite all the pleading, not only across this Table—people may say that that is only a party battle—but by all responsible town planning authorities, consultants and everyone else who has had anything to do with the problems of London over the years. We have all known that these things must be done.
Those are the points in the White Paper of which I approve. Now for the others. The
one which causes a great deal of alarm is the question of the green belt. Time and again successive Ministers have said that they would defend the green belt with their lives. They have repudiated as smear tactics any suggestion that they would allow any interference with it. Now we get a rather different story in the White Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman should say something about how he sees his plan working.
Paragraph 64 deals with the green belt and makes some flattering remarks about it, but paragraph 66 still says that planning authorities are to be invited to consider initially in the light of the needs set out in the Paper what additional areas would be suitable for housing. There

are two great criticisms of that. The first is that it is typical of the Government's piecemeal approach to this problem that instead of our having a comprehensive land use plan, so that we could know what should be apportioned to what purpose, planning authorities under stress and pressure are to scrape up what land they can find available for further housing.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Member deny that there are acres within the existing green belt around London which could be used for housing and which are not really green belt?

Mr. MacColl: My difficulty about that is that I suspect that things are not really green belt when it suits the builders to develop them, and that when not much effective use can be made of them, then they are aesthetically suitable for the green belt. I am not quarrelling with the need to find land for building, but I am saying that we should have some proper plans instead of scraping up what can be found from local authorities under pressure.
That leads me to the next great criticism, which is the great encouragement to speculation. The right hon. Gentleman symbolises floating value. He is a gigantic piece of floating value hovering over Greater London with the land for 200,000 houses which he has to find somewhere. The bet is where the right hon. Gentleman is to land, because where he lands will be the development value, the rise in the price of land, the opportunity for the speculator to cash in. Not only in London but in other parts of the country people will watch the right hon. Gentleman to guess which way he will move.
That goes a very long way from the bold words which we used to have from the Home Secretary. In an interview with the Daily Mail in 1961, obviously warming up under the stimulus of the interview, the present Home Secretary said:
I warn speculators who are dabbling in land for housing in the hope of making big killings. I warn them—'look out! Some of you are likely to get your fingers badly burned'.
Those are fine fighting words from the right hon. Gentleman, but what is to happen now if not precisely what he was warning about? Who is to prevent the speculators from taking advantage of these proposals?
That leads me to say something about some other green belt problems with which I should like the Minister to deal. The same sort of thing seems to be happening in the west Midlands. I recently saw some discussions of a dispute in the village of Lapworth, in Warwickshire. I am not an expert on the west Midlands, but it so happens that this is one of the few villages in west Warwickshire which I have visited. My memories of it are very happy, because I went to a wedding there, and I think it a very charming place.
The history of Lapworth—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman can check me if I am wrong—is that in 1955 the villagers were told that their village was in the green belt. In 1957, it was proposed by the local authorities in the area that 133 acres should be available as white land for development if required. That led to a good deal of protest, and eventually, after varying proposals, in 1959 the area was reduced to 50 acres, and that was the figure put in the development plan. However, in 1962 it was decided that the acreage should go back to 133.
On the face of it, it seemed sad that in a part of the west Midlands where the distances between the great west Midlands towns are probably at their narrowest, where the undeveloped area is probably at its narrowest, an area like that should be considered for substantial redevelopment. But even supposing that the decision is right, what can be worse, not only from the point of view of the morale of the people but from that of the reaction of the land speculators, than taking this, "You are in, you are out, you are in" attitude? That is simply inviting people to believe that development plans and Ministers are not serious when they talk about the green belt, and that, therefore, one should hang on to one's land in the hope of getting a whacking great profit on it because of the pressure of housing need. Whose fingers are getting burned in these operations? I suspect that it is not the speculators'.
Another alarming remark was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister the other day when he was talking about his proposals for Lancashire. Speaking of the need for more houses, he said:
With this in mind I am considering whether any modifications are needed in Lancashire County Council's proposals for a Merseyside

green belt and I shall shortly discuss this with the county council ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1963; Vol. 672, c. 243.]
There is the same threat with which we are faced in London and which appears to be facing the west Midlands. Now in Lancashire nobody knows how safe the green belt is to be.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I want to correct one impression, in case it becomes widespread from the speech of the hon. Member. Except for one instance, about which I shall be telling the Committee, the initiative in all these modifications to the green belt should come from the local authority. The modifications I intend to discuss with the Lancashire County Council will be connected with the proposals by Liverpool which were ventilated at a public inquiry some months ago. The initiative came from the county borough. The White Paper invites local authorities surrounding London themselves to do the selection, because, of course, the Minister has to retain his quasi-judicial position in order to judge, after a public inquiry where necessary—and it will almost always be necessary—in such cases where the public interest lies.

Mr. MacColl: The right hon. Gentleman remains the trustee of the green belt for the public. I do not know from whence the pressure comes in some cases, whether from the exporting local authority, the reception authority, or even private developers. What I am saying is that the kind of statement which the right hon. Gentleman made strikes terror into people's hearts. Lancashire is as much entitled to its green fields as is London, and in the small conurbations we have to avoid the kind of mistakes which so shockingly and so unfortunately have been made in areas around Greater London.
I warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for new towns in Lancashire. Personally, I do not know anything about Redditch, but I know a great deal about Runcorn and I am very pleased to hear that at last, after all these long delays, new towns have been founded in the North-West. The story of Skelmersdale was pretty shocking—in the plan and then out and then in again—in


that characteristic acting in administrative fog, but now we have this new proposal.
It is not a carping criticism, but a genuine comment on the problems involved to say that it is a difficult operation to start a new town in as large a place as Runcorn, or Redditch, which I believe to be of about the same size. I have some experience because I was present at the birth pangs of Hemel Hempstead, although I did not stay on the corporation long enough to have the satisfaction of seeing the child delivered. However, Hemel Hempstead was then about the same size as Runcorn is today, in the 20,000s, and the trouble was that you cannot have two kings in Brentford—the development corporation with all the resources of the Government behind it and the authority of a full-time salaried board, on the one hand, and, on the other, the hard-working, conscientious urban district council, anxious about and perhaps inevitably a little jealous of the new arrival. I am not saying it is an insoluble problem, because I think that it has been solved fairly satisfactorily over the years in Hemel Hempstead.

Mr. James Dance: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Actually, Redditch happens to be in my constituency. Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that in many ways the mere fact that there is a resident population there, with tradition, history, art and culture, is a much better medium to start off absorbing new population than starting from scratch?

Mr. MacColl: I think that there is a lot in that, but I am bound to say that after my experience in Hemel Hempstead, which was limited, I came away with the feeling that expanded towns were a better instrument in these larger places than having the development corporation procedure. However, having seen the difficulties of expanded towns since then I do not think that that is necessarily true.
I am not saying it is a wrong decision, or that it would have been wiser to have left development to the local authority. What I am saying is that it is a great challenge for the wisdom and tact of both the development corporation and the urban district council, with the

county council hovering in the background of these things, to try to make it a successful operation.
There have been criticisms of these towns as being main exporting centres and, therefore, they will just be dormitories. I am afraid at the moment on Merseyside it is not a question of the journey to work being too short; it is a question of the journey to the employment exchange being too short because in view of the present unemployment on Merseyside the difficulty will not be the tendency for people to go into Liverpool to get jobs, but that they will not get jobs at all.
Perhaps I may just grind a constituency point about this, and I am sure it is relevant in other cases. In Widnes, we are an expanding town. We have agreed to take 15,000 people from Liverpool and we are welcoming them. We have voluntarily undertaken to do this. We have had a long task in getting the agreement signed and the arrangements made and, therefore, it is a bit of a shock to us suddenly to find, across the river, a new town being started. Naturally, it causes a great deal of uncertainty in a place like Widnes as to what will happen to their own scheme.
It is true that the right hon. Gentleman said that it was going ahead and that he would do all he could to press it forward, but it involves also the President of the Board of Trade, because the problem is in getting adequate employment. One has the situation of a town invited to take 15,000 extra population, with an unemployment percentage of 6 per cent., with a development district at Liverpool, down river, and a new town with all the resources in the way of being able to get new factories, and so on, and a development corporation across the bridge. I think that this can only mean that Widnes must become a development district. I do not want to press that point, because I feel confident that is what the Government will see must be done. Therefore, I will not waste time labouring that point.
There is one other point on the administrative side I should like to ask about and that is what hopes there are for speeding up the inquiries not only in the field of new towns, but in all types of town planning development. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Council on Tribunals criticised this just about


a year ago. In particular, it referred to the delays, and in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) the right hon. Gentleman gave some figures about the number of cases still waiting to be heard. That is maddeningly frustrating, both for local authorities who want to get on with the development and are held up while objections are being considered, and also for private developers who are held up because local authorities or other people are making objections. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to have some comforting words for us, that he is able to get more inspectors and, therefore, more inquiries done.
Finally, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say something about central urban redevelopment. If one takes a place like Widnes it is tremendously important that if one is to provide an adequate town for people to go in from a place like Liverpool, they must be provided not only with houses but also with reasonable factories. They must not only be provided with public buildings, schools, and so on, but also with properly equipped, modern factories, shops and houses, and all those things ought to be included in urban redevelopment.
It was only last April that the present Minister Without Portfolio carried a Motion on this subject in the House. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman what he undertook, because he did not resist this Motion:
That this House … calls upon Her Majesty's Government to view urban central redevelopment on a national scale; to consider at once making available to local authorities engaged in the work more guidance and advice, particularly on long-term traffic needs and ways of bringing private enterprise and public authorities into closer partnership; to devise ways of giving more financial encouragement where large sums are at stake; to take stock of professional skills available to local authorities for this kind of work with a view to stimulating recruiting and training of them if necessary; and to examine the possibilities of closer co-ordination between the Ministries concerned."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 13th April, 1962; Vol. 657, c. 1645.]
That was the Minister Without Portfolio, now in the Cabinet. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he has been doing about it since April? Has he any ideas about it? What progress has been made?
The only other point I want to touch on on the question of urban renewal—and that is the last thing I want to say

—is the question of compensation. We all know that in our constituencies there has been a good deal of unhappiness among displaced traders and a good many claims that the compensation is inadequate. I do not know whether that is true or not, because I have not seen any applications. Of course, it is true that this tends to be a one-way and not a two-way thing. In other words, if a trader has a large area built next door to him with the result that the trade of his shop increases, he does not expect to have a levy made against him. He accepts that as part of his good fortune, or as a bonus.
When the converse happens and the swing is away from him, then he begins to complain that he ought to get compensation. In the Minister's approach to the renewal of town centres, he made clear, in paragraph 71 of the White Paper, the importance he attached to this subject. I will read it, because in view of the comments which have been made and the Motions on the Order Paper what is said by the Government is something that ought to be realised:
The interests of displaced traders must be respected. Both the Minister and the local authority have a statutory duty … to secure that, so far as is practicable, reasonable alternative accommodation is offered to displaced traders on terms which have due regard to the price at which their land was acquired. Redevelopment cannot be accounted a success unless every effort is made to provide satisfactorily for these established local interests and to ease the disturbance inherent in redevelopment schemes of this kind.
Is that working? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about it?

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: Is it not true that the vast majority of traders who suffer hardship when displaced are not those who actually own the property, but those who have their shops on weekly or monthly tenancies? That has been the case in my constituency. Is not that largely true?

Mr. MacColl: That is very probably true. I am not coming down on one side or the other, but we all want to be sure that there is fair compensation because we do not want the schemes held up by friction and public opinion created by unjust treatment. It may well be that in many cases the local authority is not careful enough to ensure that when it acquires land in partnership with private developers there are adequate facilities


and arrangements in conjunction with the private development for reaccommodating people. Where such partnerships exist, it is important that the local authority should ensure that the private developer takes full responsibility not only for rehousing the people but for providing other non-remunerative services.

Mr. William Yates: With regard to these alternatives or whatever accommodation is offered, I often find that my constituents fail to realise that, though the rent may be more, their opportunities are sometimes better. We must keep these two things in relation to each other.

Mr. MacColl: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman—it is no good my trying to reassure anybody; no one cares what I say—will reassure those who are worried about these matters. I thought it my duty to mention this matter because it is exercising people's minds.
My final word to the right hon. Gentleman is that I have been searching my conscience, and this is, after all, Shrove Tuesday and the time for examining one's conscience. I may have been a little over-critical of him in what I said about the White Paper and the number of platitudes and the amount of talk and froth in it, but I give him the credit for having done one very good job. It must have been a hard struggle for him to get as much as he has got in the way of these new towns. I do not think this absolves the Government of responsibility for the delay, for this should have been done before. However, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have the credit due to him for the slight gleam of hope in the other areas that the tragic mistakes made in respect of Greater London will not be made in the west Midlands and the North-West.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Philip N. Hocking: I welcome the debate. If I do not follow the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) through the ramifications of the White Paper, I hope that the Committee will forgive me. There are a number of points which need to be raised from a planning point of view—questions which ought to be asked.
I have had a rather unique experience in that I have had the good fortune

to take part in planning matters from every angle. I was trained and worked as an architect for a time, submitting planning applcations for various people. I had the good fortune to serve on a planning applications for various people, so was able to see planning applications from another point of view. Latterly, I have had some interest in planning from the point of view of a contractor. So I can safely say that I have seen town planning and its application from every point of view.
During the last fifteen or twenty years town planning has become almost a peculiar science. Just before the war
it was practised largely by architects. Then, slowly, the Town Planning Institute grew up, and, latterly, there has been a certain amount of mystique about town planning. A most peculiar being has set himself up as a town planner, whereas the problems which he solves are to a great extent only the normal problems of the architect planning a comparatively reasonable building.
Some of the points that I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend are those concerned with the different applications of planning in town and country. In many of our cities and larger conurbations it is difficult to get planning approval for even a reasonable scheme. Yet in another part of the country the same type of scheme will receive approval fairly quickly. In some of the country districts, on the other hand, it is easier; yet it is in the country where I believe we have most to lose.
I have never understood why it is possible to erect the most ghastly looking agricultural buildings in concrete and asbestos in the country—one has only to travel through the Cotswolds to see this happening; one often sees glorious panoramic views ruined by a precast concrete building with a white asbestos roof—and yet approval is often withheld from someone who wants to build possibly a modest house on the outskirts of a village and landscape it properly and use materials which would blend in with the surroundings.
I believe that in the cities pressure is growing on the planning machine. It has been growing for some considerable time. Today, it takes a longer period to obtain planning permission for a scheme than


it has ever done. It used to be possible to get complete byelaw approval and planning permission within two or three weeks for a reasonable scheme. Today, assuming that one has outline planning permission—that is, permission for the use of the land for whatever purpose one wishes to use it—it is difficult to get detailed planning permission in under three months. This delay is unreasonable, and it is certainly not practical.
During the three months one often finds that discussions go backwards and forwards between the would-be developer, on the one hand, and the planning staff, on the other. It is a battle of wits. When I served on a planning committee, the chairman used to describe it as horse trading. I do not think that planning is a field for horse trading at all. Many of the points which are raised by the local planning staff often cover such things as a matter of opinion as to whether this or that facing material is reasonable. There are many niggling points brought up as to whether the house or building should be turned this way or that way. All these points are used by planning officers in discussion to force the bargain that they want.
Often, during these discussions, the developer is at a very serious disadvantage. He cannot get approval or rejection of his plans, and in the end, if he digs his toes in, it means that his only recourse is to appeal to the Minister. I have noticed during the last two or three years how the number of appeals to the Minister has gone up. It went up by one-fifth between 1960 and 1961. The appeal procedure means that there must be delay, and, after all, delay costs money to someone.
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that something should be done about the appeal procedure. I should have thought that it was possible to devise a simpler form of procedure, but I shall come back to this in a few moments.
I think that it is now generally accepted that when the development plans for the various towns and cities, and the county plans, were introduced some years ago too little land was made available for housing needs. This gives rise to what the hon. Gentleman described as nibbling into the green belts. There is built into the planning law machinery for looking

at these plans again, and making amendments to them, but this machinery for the reallocation of land appears to be much too slow.
I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the village of Lapworth. I know it well. I was sorry that he isolated Lapworth from the rest of the Warwickshire plan, because although development has been added to Lap-worth it has been taken away from some of the other villages which are every bit as beautiful. I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman is in agreement with the thesis that no amendment whatsoever should be made to these plans; that once having decided that a village or town should be so big, it must never be altered again. That, surely, is a negative attitude to planning.
When planning authorities decide to amend their plans, it often takes as long as two years for their reviews to be approved. This is a very lengthy period, and it must lead to an increasing number of appeals by would-be developers. If the approval of a planning review takes two years, a number of people may well move in and suggest various schemes in the hope that theirs will fit in with the revised plans. The local authorities automatically reject those planning applications, and then the developer comes along and decides to go to appeal. The machine is thus cluttered up with a number of appeals in this sort of category. Is it not possible to devise a system whereby a planning review can be decided on much more quickly than at the moment? I am sure that if my right hon. Friend could devise such a system the number of appeals would diminish.
I said a few moments ago that the appeal procedure should be modified considerably. Is it not possible to devise a method of regional appeals, instead of all the appeals coming to the Minister? Could not some of the less important appeals be settled at regional level? I should have thought that it was possible to set up some form of machinery on which the Minister is represented, on which the local authorities are represented and on which regional architects are represented so that they can express their opinions.
I have never been altogether satisfied with the present arrangement whereby an inspector holds an inquiry and makes


a report. I think that there is scope for bringing independent architects into these appeals so that there can be genuine independent opinions. Many of the decisions which are taken are, after all, matters of opinion. They are matters of opinion on aesthetic points of architecture or planning, and I believe that there is scope in this work for these independent bodies to give their opinions about various matters.
At the moment, in many people's minds planning has become associated with rigid control, and I think that this is bad. I hope that the Minister will use his influence to speed up planning decisions from the point of view of the planning authorities, and to bring speedy relief in the cases of appeal.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking) started by drawing attention to some buildings in the countryside which are ugly. I think that it is as well to bear in mind that town and country planning ought to be an exciting subject. It is about beauty and human beings and gaiety. By the time it has been smothered in the language which is usually used to describe it, and by the time one has clambered about among the reports on the subject, all life has been drained out of it.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman also had a point when he protested against the delay in getting decisions. My only point on that is that the architects to whom I have spoken are rather frightened lest the new proposals for London lead to further delays, because there is to be some division of responsibility between the Greater London Council and the boroughs.
I want to address my remarks to the White Paper. It is a monument to the incapacity of the Government to take decisions in planning. In so far as it is a plan at all, it is incomplete, because it depends on the reports of at least three inquiries. It is aimed far more at the fifties than at the period at which we should be looking, and it should be noticed that it is a plan—in so far as it is a plan at all—for increasing the population in the south-east and London area.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government must not be given credit by the right hon.

Gentleman for the natural increase in the south-east area for which this White Paper makes provision so far as London only is concerned.

Mr. Grimond: I have no intention of giving the Government credit for anything, least of all for that. Paragraph 2 says:
The policy outlined here takes into account the Government's firm determination to reduce the movement of population from Scotland and the North.
It does not say to stop it, and, therefore, this presupposes that it will go on.
This plan depends on three inquiries. One is mentioned in paragraph 4, which says:
The regional study is examining the growth and movement of population in the South-East…
I suggest that what we need, in the first place, is not an inquiry into the growth and movement of population in the South-East, but an inquiry into the whole concept that we have of Great Britain in the period from, say, the 'seventies to the end of the century. From that there would follow certain consequences which would apply to the South-East.
I want to draw attention to three matters mentioned in this White Paper. Paragraph 8 says:
Since the mid-fifties nearly 40,000 new jobs a year have been created in the conurbation.
To anyone coming from Scotland or the North that is a terrifying figure. If those 40,000 jobs had been provided in Scotland, they would have made up at least the minimum at which the Toothill Report aimed, but they are accepted by the Government as having been created in the South-East.
Paragraph 58 of the White Paper, which deals with the question of dispersal, says:
The scale on which it will be needed and the extent to which it can be considered practicable cannot be established until the South-East Study is completed.
There are no definite proposals in this White Paper for dispersal, and the summary mentions the need for half a million new houses for London. I do not complain about clearing slums in London. I am aware of the housing conditions here, but I ask the House and the Government to consider their policy


as a whole. Are they serious about repopulating the North, Scotland, Wales and the South-West? Are they serious about reversing the drift to the South-East? If so, why have we had this White Paper?
The Government have no plan for these other areas. When we get a plan, if we ever do, for Scotland is it merely to say that it is hoped to slow down the depopulation from Scotland? The life blood of Scotland is draining away and it is not sufficient to slow it down. Unless the Government are determined to reverse the trend—and I believe this goes for north-east England, also—they will face a situation in Scotland as a whole similar to that which now exists in the Highlands and other parts of the extreme North. We must have growth points in Scotland and they must be points of political, social and economic power as well as of industrial growth. I see no signs of this in the Government's general policy on town and country planning.
The kind of thing we want to see is new roads being built in this country which go out of their way to avoid the conurbations in the South-East, say down to Southampton, to ports in the North, across Scotland and in Wales; and roads which do not follow the old railway routes. I would draw the attention of the House to the Government's proposal to create a new town at Redditch. Again, if this is necessary to clear the slums in Birmingham it may be a good thing but, like other hon. Members, I strongly suspect that it will not be a new town at all, but that most of those who are to live there will work in Birmingham. Is it the Government's intention to give certificates for new factories in Redditch? Where are the new towns in the really depressed parts of the country? There are two or three of them, but the bulk of the effort to build new towns has gone into the area around London. That is revealed in the map printed with the White Paper showing development within what is described as the metropolitan region. Now a new town is to be built in the Midlands.
Then—and this is a matter which I have raised before—when are we to have the Government's plans for improving ports away from London? When are we to be told what is to be done about ports in north-east England, Scotland

and Wales? That is the kind of planning I would have liked to have seen and until it is drawn up it is no good talking about Government plans for tackling the long-term situation of the North-East and Scotland. When any such plan is drawn up is it to be an entirely London-made plan in which these districts are looked at from the point of view of London, and planned entirely on London lines?—because, if so, I can tell the Government that it will fail. We have the experience of the last twenty or thirty years to show how such plans have failed. We have to get away from the present concept and to look at the situation which will arise by creating away from London the growth points which everyone admits are necessary.
Next, an inquiry is to go on, believe it or not, as to whether the Government can move more of their civil servants out of London—and this after twelve years in office. That point has been put to them again and again and now we are to have an inquiry to find out whether or not this can be done. Of course it can be done, and it has to be done, but if we want it to be effective we have to move out not only the clerks and the typists, but some of the power from London. We have to give the power to take decisions to Scotland, Wales and probably the north of England.
If we really want to disperse some of the office population out of London we have to send their jobs out; and that does not mean moving out only the lower-paid jobs, but moving out, also, the power to take decisions and embarking on a policy of devolution. There is no reason why this should not be done even for offices which may have to retain some nucleus in London. There are all kinds of modern devices, like closed-circuit television, which can now keep one office in touch with another.
Then, have the Government looked at whether the Board of Trade should not shed some of its responsibilities for regional development and whether regional development offices should not be set up in Scotland and Wales? When are we to be told that the Government are to create machinery for bringing new life to these countries? The Government were asked some time ago why the National Coal Board should not move out of London. Has there been any answer to that? Have any conversations been


carried on about it with the Coal Board and other nationalised industries. May I ask the Minister how much new office space has been taken by the Government themselves in London during the past year? Can he tell us how much new office space the Government are now taking up in London, during the very period that they have been stressing the need to get offices out of London?
Then there is the inquiry into the management and use of existing housing, mentioned in paragraph 51 of the White Paper. I notice that there is no inquiry into rents, but perhaps "management and use" includes rents. I also notice—and I consider that this is a serous omission from the White Paper—that there is no mention of taxation of land values, or on profits made out of land. Nor is there any mention of such an authority as has been suggested many times, by Liberals and others which could hold "twilight" areas until they can be redeveloped. It is very necessary for urban renewal to have some such authority which can help areas which need rebuilding until they can be let off for rebuilding either to public authorities or private developers. Perhaps we can be told whether the Government have come to any conclusion to this suggestion.
Then there is the matter of the green belt, a subject on which I share the anxiety of other hon. Members. This House has been assured again and again that the Government will not tolerate "nibbling" at the green belt. It appears now that perhaps "nibbling" is not to be permitted, but that taking great bites out of it may be permitted. I do not know whether the Government are to tell us more on that, but, if so, I hope that they will be more specific. I do not think that anyone would maintain that under no circumstances ever should any land be taken for building in any area selected for green belt; but if such land should be taken then we should be assured as to the processes which have to be gone through before that is done.
We should be assured, too, that the Government have other proposals for maintaining the essential character of the green belt which is to allow large open spaces within the conurbations of the South-East. The green belt was originally invented largely as a holding

operation to put a "moat" round the growth of Greater London. It may be that the conception of a moat is medieval and that we are too much influenced by the idea of a walled city all in one piece; and perhaps more attention should be paid to providing open spaces which run into built-up areas and should aim also at providing open spaces along such places as canals. There can be ribbon development of open spaces as well as ribbon development of houses. But if this is to be done we should have a much fuller explanation from the Government. At present, the impression must remain that the Government are going back on their pledges that they will not touch the green belt.
Like other hon. Members, I would welcome the change which is forecast in relation to 10 per cent. extra on cubic capacity in office building. There has been a great increase in office building and I believe that there has been a tendency to increase the density there. The White Paper says that there has been a 32 per cent increase over pre-war floor space. I believe that it is right to attempt to get office building round the periphery and to stop this steady "breathing in and out" of central London; but is there much co-ordination about this? I am told of proposals to close the railway line which goes from Richmond round the periphery and into the City. If the Government are encouraging peripheral office building, that is the sort of line which should be kept open.
I must also ask them about the new tube railway line which is to run slap through the middle of London. That may be necessary even if the numbers of people moving into the middle of London is reduced—but who will pay for it? Again, I reiterate that I attach the greatest importance to taking the main emphasis off development in the south-east of England and putting it on development in the North, Scotland and Wales.
There is a clear need now to look at the 1970s and 1980s, and at the country as a whole, and to try to draw up a plan for the main features of the country, not only in respect of transport, ports and housing but also in respect of water resources—and then to create the machinery which will make a sensible town and country planning policy possible. We have never had it so far. I envisage some kind


of small unit—and I emphasise that it should be a small unit—and the creation of regional bodies in touch with that unit and adequately supplied with technical staff to draw up a proper plan.
Of late, the Government have told us that we are at the end of an era. They wish to draw a veil over the last twelve years during which they have been in office, but they cannot escape responsibility for this. Nor does the White Paper, with its very belated announcement about town and country planning, give me any confidence that the Government will do any better in the next ten years, if they remain in office.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: I was interested in the observations of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Liberal Leader, but I was surprised when he commenced his speech by saying that he would speak about the White Paper, and then, having said that, he travelled over Scotland, Wales and the North-East Coast ports and finally brought in the question of water resources. I shall endeavour to keep more closely to the White PaperLondon—Employment: Housing: Land—because it contains many points of extreme interest.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the White Paper, which is a real step in the right direction. It is not the whole answer, but it is just as well to take a firm step in the right direction while exploring alternative avenues. In paragraph 5 the White Paper mentions population and employment and says that we must "not plan for a static London". My right hon. Friend is quite right, but, more than that, we must not plan for a static Britain. We must plan for a dynamic purposeful Britain.
In this connection, I draw attention to one important factor which is brought out in the White Paper, and to two related factors. The White Paper says that the effect of smaller households in the next ten years will be to increase the demand for housing accommodation by 10 per cent. The average number of persons per household will decrease from 3·3 to approximately 3 per household, and that will mean an increasing demand for housing, accommodation. The first of the two additional factors, to which I draw atten-

tion, is the velocity of the reproductive cycle. We cannot stop these young couples from getting married at an earlier age! We do not want to do so! But the effect will be that we shall have four generations per century, as opposed to the three generations that we were accustomed to twenty-five years ago. The second factor is that most people are living longer. The effect of those two natural happenings will be to increase our population by about 25 per cent. in the next twenty-five years—an increase of 1 per cent. per annum. That in itself will mean a substantial additional demand for homes.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) pointed out that this was Shrove Tuesday. I have no wish to be controversial on such a day, but I would remind him of the housing achievements of the Conservative Party. During the last ten years it has built more houses than the Labour Party ever thought possible. If that is not a considerable achievement, I do not know what is.
I want to refer briefly to the Town and Country Planning Bill. Your predecessor, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, said that it would be possible to make brief references to increases in office floor space which can be achieved by redevelopment. I hope that the Bill will not operate to any great extent in provincial Britain to stop redevelopment, because there we shall need a considerable increase in office accommodation in order to house office workers in the improved conditions envisaged in the Offices Bill now going through Parliament.
Paragraph 64 of the White Paper rightly refers to the Metropolitan Green Belt, and before the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland leaves the Chamber I remind him that the only statutory green belts in this country are the Metropolitan Green Belt and a very small section of green belt somewhere in the region of the Solent. The other green belts at present are only proposed green belts, and the right time to make any change in green belt policy will be when it is proposed to make them statutory. But it would be sensible to release certain pockets of land or salients in the Metropolitan Green Belt which are neither green nor attractive as features of the landscape in order to assist the housing situation.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East): That is a very general statement to make, and many people will fundamentally disagree with it. Has my hon. Friend any particular pockets in mind in making that general statement?

Mr. Temple: Naturally, when I make a general statement I am prepared to be more specific. The salients that I have in mind are those which run, say, between railway lines. They are often of minimal agricultural value and probably of very little scenic value. We all know of such pockets in and around London which would be more valuable for housing purposes. This is a matter of judgment, but I believe that many such pockets or salients could be developed in case of need.
I notice that my right hon. Friend proposes to strengthen the green belt by adding to it. We must be careful here, because one of the difficulties about the Metropolitan Green Belt is that it was delineated very largely by reference to local authority boundaries. One of the first Ministry circulars sent out with reference to green belts said that they should be delineated by reference to natural features in the landscape, and when we are seeking to extend them we must see that we do have reference to those natural features, such as escarpments and boundaries of river basins. If we do that, the boundary of a green belt will command much more respect than it does now, delineated as it is largely by reference to local authority boundaries.
I remind the Minister that we must think long and carefully before we extend the green belt to any great extent. It is extraordinarily restrictive of development within its boundaries and we must have regard to the restriction which is built in in any future extension of green belt policy. The White Paper says that the Government are to proceed with this expansion of the green belt, but the Minister cloaks in a veil of mystery the way in which this problem will be dealt with. I hope that whoever replies will tell us how the problem is to be tackled.
I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party about regional planning. For some years I have said that there was a good case for this, and I am glad that the White

Paper contains a statement calling for a regional plan for London and South-East England. With my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I had the honour to be a co-author of "Change and Challenge", which was published last year by the Conservative Political Centre. That publication envisaged the setting up of a regional planning board or authority for the south-east region of Britain. It took cognisance of the fact that there would be
a Greater London Council. It suggested that the regional planning board should have a varied membership drawn from the local planning authorities, including the Greater London Council, and that it should encompass an area going as far north as Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire.
Representatives would, of course, be placed on this board from those counties, and, in addition, the suggestion was that the board should incorporate independent representatives in the same way as the Water Resources Board envisages having a membership from industry and various other parties interested in planning, such as the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport.
I believe that there is a powerful case today for looking rather beyond planning just in the Metropolitan region itself. I believe that the Metropolitan district could well be fitted into this region of south-east England.
I congratulate my right lion. Friend on
his great political courage and, in fact, the great political courage of the Conservative Party in reorganising local government in Greater London. Comparatively recently I had the privilege of being received by the planning authority of San Francisco. That planning authority has studied with great interest the reorganisation of local government in Greater London. In the San Francisco Bay area, similar to our conurbation around London, and the surrounding districts there are very many local authorities. They would give anything to have just one council responsible for planning in the whole of the San Francisco Bay area. They paid tribute to our political courage in bringing in one planning authority for the whole of the Metropolitan district of London.
I believe that having done that there is a powerful case for merging certain


of these planning powers for, shall I say, statistical and research purposes so that the regional planning board could give advice from a statistical and research point of view to the Government as to how the south-east region should be developed.

Mr. W. Yates: Did my hon. Friend go to Los Angeles as well and discuss the matter with that authority?

Mr. Temple: I did not have the privilege of going to Los Angeles, but I visited New York and Boston and spoke with the planning commissions in both cities.
I believe it is essential that any planning should be flexible. I do not think it possible to plan for fifty or 100 years hence on an entirely rigid and immutable basis, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will perhaps act on this advice, because it must be clear that at times there will be movement within all the designated areas of the country. By designated, of course, I include development plans and green belt proposals.
I will give one example of where I believe that a flexible provision should be made. I think hon. Members will be aware that in London there is a "Caravan Harbour" run by the Caravan Club of Great Britain. The caravan harbour is on 4 acres of land at the Crystal Palace and is on a six-months lease to the Caravan Club of Great Britain from the L.C.C. The harbour is an immense tourist attraction. In the last year 30,000 campers and caravanners used that harbour. Some
35 per cent. of them came from the continent of Europe, 10 per cent. from the Commonwealth and 5 per cent. from the United States of America. This caravan harbour is in danger of being closed because the lease is only on a six-monthly basis. It is things like this which I hope will be taken into account when the planning for the Metropolitan area is decided.
I have no wish to take up the time of the House this evening on any more details within the White Paper, but, as I have said, I believe that it is a satisfactory start. It is indeed a useful instalment, but it is certainly not the whole plan, and, in the words of The Times leader, I believe that what is required is
a strategic plan for the entire South-East Region".

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I very much hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will not pay too much attention to what the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has just said in relation to the possible extension of green belts. My own view is that unless we are to have built-up areas, particularly in the South-East, from the Thames to the Channel one has to maintain the green belt wherever possible, and I hope that will go out from both sides of the House as the general advice which we feel we can give the Minister.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely in the need for a regional authority to plan land use for the whole of the South-East, but I could not understand why the hon. Gentleman was so full of praise and congratulation for the Minister when he is introducing the reorganisation measures for the Greater London area which will not produce one regional planning authority or one superior planning authority even within that area. Indeed, we now know—and this is the supreme irony—that while the Royal Commission said that the arrangements for planning are hopeless in the review area, because there are nine planning authorities, the Minister has evolved a scheme which will give us thirty-four, and they, more or less, will be equal, some perhaps more than others. There is no one planning authority with supreme power. Every borough will have two plans, the borough development plan and that part of the Greater London development plan. This will create chaos and makes nonsense of hitherto held concepts of town and country planning. There is one feeling of hope about the Bill. It is so full of opportunities for the Minister to intervene by regulation that perhaps a new Minister will be able to bring order out of chaos.
I am glad that at long last we are having an opportunity to pay some attention to considerations of town and country planning, because for good or ill—I fear to an increasing degree for ill—we are acquiescing in determination of land use and all that goes with it—health amenity, ease of human communications, which may well be determined for generations to come. We are all preparing our own monument for future generations, and I am bound to say,


taking as objective a view of the matter as possible, that we are making a pretty sorry mess of it in most parts of the country, and it will be so regarded.
The first conclusion which I think sticks out a mile, and which is recognised by a number of hon. Members opposite, is the almost complete lack of co-ordination in planning activities in the Government. It is absurd to have the Board of Trade deciding industrial locations and factory developments quite separately from the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Transport. We all know that there is some kind of formal consultation, but it would have been impossible to have reached the situation of gross overcrowding which we have reached in the south-east region had there been more consultation and more unity in the approach to the problem.
A recent article in Lloyds Bank Review showed—and, indeed, the figures in the White Paper show—that the industrial location in the Greater London area, in the south-east region, could never have come about if industrial certificates had not been granted almost as a mere formality by the Board of Trade. We know that since the war 40 per cent. of the jobs in all the new industries have actually been in this already congested south-east area.
The Minister of Transport—as a Committee of the House found not so long ago—decides on communications very much in isolation. Who would have put the M.1 as a first communication priority, a road on which, if one is lucky and there are no hold-ups due to the breakup of the road surface, one is able to go at 90 to 100 m.p.h., but only between the two greatest traffic concentrations in Europe. Whereas the M.4, linking the South Wales ports with the south-west ports and London, was obviously of much greater strategic and commercial importance.
This lack of general co-ordination between the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Transport and the Board of Trade is one of the main reasons why we have got into this muddle. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have not the status even to decide the issue raised in the White Paper. It requires an important member of the

Cabinet or a Cabinet sub-committee to ensure that planning can be discussed with a unitary approach by the three Departments which I have mentioned.

Mr. Hocking: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the priority of M.1. Surely he realises that this road carries one of the largest percentages of goods from the very workshop of England to the docks, from where those goods are sent overseas? Surely the hon. Gentleman has travelled that road sufficiently often to realise the quantity of goods which are transported on it. Surely it was a reasonable order of priority which was decided upon? Exports are vital to this country, and the quicker they get to the docks the better.

Mr. Skeffington: I still think that the strategic, economic and social considerations regarding the development of new industries in Wales are much more important than the provision of a road between two highly congested cities when there are adequate rail communications available. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, and the view which I put forward is certainly nearer to that of the Committee of this House which investigated the matter eighteen months ago.
Another body blow was dealt to the whole concept of town and country planning when parts of the 1947 Act were abrogated by the 1954 and 1959 compensation provisions in the two Acts of those years. Up to 1954, if an outline planning permission, because of changed circumstances, was changed, or if the Minister directed a change in outline planning permission, the local authority had merely to meet the appropriate cost of abortive expenditure. But now, in many instances, they may be responsible for the expected commercial value of the whole enterprise, had it ever been completed. The result is that from time to time when authorities know that they ought to revoke or modify some aspect of planning they are inhibited from doing so by the financial consequences. This has meant that much of the planning has been quite negative.
If we couple that with the high commercial value attached to land purchased by public authorities, we can appreciate how in many cases our social development is being twisted by these compensation proposals. I will give one example


from my own constituency involving two acres of land, well sited near a railway station and near to three large factories. There is a desperate need for housing; more than 2,000 families are on the waiting list. The commercial speculative value of those two acres is over £70,000, which is many thousands more than the value given by the district auditor. The result is that 50, 60 or 70 families will certainly not be living in houses built there by the local authority, and factory workers must continue to travel longer distances in order to work in the district. If one takes a look at specific planning bearing in mind that there is no Cabinet Minister with adequate authority in charge, plus the effect of the compensation proposals. I have mentioned, one begins to realise the sad and sorry mess we are in.
I wish to refer to a specific example from the county in which I live. As
an inhabitant. I have been watching some of the planning decisions with growing apprehension which, I may say, is shared by many residents. I have spoken to several hon. Members who are concerned and who all happen to sit on the opposite side of the Committee. They were aware that I intended to raise these matters today. I am not raising them as constituency points, but as an example of what is happening in Kent. I wish to express concern about the development taking place even in the village of Meopham where I live. There is a town development plan which allows for considerable expansion, and I have been watching the rapid development in relation to the public services.
Incidentally, a number of people have told me that they cannot understand why individual applications are continually being turned down but bigger development plans involving a number of houses always seem to be approved. I have suggested that individual planning applications may be as objectionable as a group application if the plan includes one house which may ruin the landscape for ever. But there is uneasiness not only about the way in which the plan is being operated but because planning decisions seem to operate in a vacuum.
We know, for example, that at Meopham the social services are not adequate for further expansion. Already the school is grossly overcrowded. The

teachers do their best and are doing a very good job. There is no complaint against them. But because of the development
which has already taken place the school is grossly overcrowded and is likely to continue so for some time with some ill effects on the children. The hospital services are inadequate. The doctors tell me that they have never been so short of maternity beds as at the present time. The railways have publicly stated they cannot take any more commuters into London either on the Maidstone or the Chatham line.
I asked the county planning officer why it was that residential development could go on even within the provisions of the town map when the existing services were so woefully below standard. The planning officer replied in a long and courteous letter and said:
As to services, the increase in the population … has been publicly known … and if it is felt that any of the bodies responsible for these services … have failed to keep reasonable pace with the development, they should be approached direct.
By whom? By me? And if I did approach them, what effect would that be likely to have? Does this mean that even though we know that there is an inadequate hospital service, or not enough schools, or that the railways cannot cater for more people, building is still to be allowed to go on? If so, we might as well say that there is no validity in any of the principles of town and country planning as we have known it, at any rate since the war——

Mr. W. Yates: rose—

Mr. Skeffington: I will give way in a moment. I am anxious not to talk for too long because other hon. Members wish to speak.
That was the answer which I received from the planning officer. I am now trying to find out from the authority which
has delegated rights in this matter what attention it pays to the social services. If they are ignored I cannot see any point in the delegated powers being given. If
they do not ignore the services, how do we proceed? Does the Minister at some stage say that there must be some halt in development until the social services have caught up? It is useless for the planning officer to say that those responsible must be approached direct. The hospital services cannot expand. There


is often no money available. In some instances, they cannot secure staff to run the beds which they have. I apologise for having taken such a humble example as the village in which I live——

Mr. Doughty: Has the hon. Gentleman written to his Member of Parliament about it?

Mr. Skeffington: I mentioned that I have been in close consultation with my Member of Parliament and he shares my concern, but I am expressing my own views on the matter. He knew that I was going to raise this issue in the debate today.
Before coming to the one major test case in Kent to which I wish to refer, I ask the Minister if he can tell me something about a different kind of development which is now going forward in connection with the fine old mediæval town of Sandwich. This is a wonderfully unique town. With Rye, I suppose there is no parallel anywhere in the world. As one approaches from Canterbury one sees the embattled town standing out in the distance across the marshes. People come from all over the world to see Sandwich as they come to see other beauty spots in Kent. In parenthesis, I point out that dollar earnings from the tourist industry are very much greater than from the sale of motor cars and probably greater than from sales of whisky, so, quite apart from the issue of keeping pace with the social services, there are quite important commercial considerations in the amenity aspects of some of our cities.
Outside the area, as one approaches, we come to what is known as Gallows Field, which may be an appropriate name for it in view of the death blow to be dealt to the whole of the ancient site by a planning decision. Although I suppose advertisement was given, many people have expressed great concern to find that a contract has been let for the building of more than 200 houses on this site. It will completely ruin the approach to the town. Local people are not saying, and I do not say, that no development should take place. There are other areas in which difficulties would not be created and destruction of amenities and the charm of this place would not take place. From many points of view this development, as it is below

flood level at particular times, may not be suitable for residential development in any case. I very much hope that we shall hear from the Minister that for the sake of amenity he is not prepared to allow that this delightful city shall be destroyed by residential development which could well take place elsewhere.
I turn for a moment to the remarks about the green belt to which my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred in his opening. I was delighted to read paragraph 64 and to get the re-emphasis of the Government on the place of the green belt as a permanent feature of planning policy in London and. I hope, elsewhere—if it is really meant. I was particularly glad to hear my hon. Friend refer to the Home Secretary's remarks about speculators burning their fingers. On a subsequent occasion when the present Home Secretary was replying to a debate of this kind I quoted the estate correspondent of the Guardian, who wrote these words in 1960
already owners of green-belt land are accepting up to £100 an acre cash down for nothing but an option to buy it if ever permission to develop it is granted.
He went on:
In some areas the humble members of small district councils, exercising delegated planning powers, are being plied with embarrassingly lavish hospitality, and divisional planning officers are being told: 'That's a shabby looking car you've got isn't it?', though its cellulose gleams factory-fresh.
In effect the property market is betting a huge and rapidly mounting sum that will succeed in breaking planning control, or alternatively, that will get its money back in the form of compensation (at current market prices) for the refusal of permission to cash by development the speculative values it is creating—which would speedily produce the same result.
The then Home Secretary used precisely the same phrase then, "They will get their fingers burnt." What the estate correspondent of the Guardian said is now very largely happening. Not only is more and more land being bought in this way, but the Minister himself, by the decision to which I now want to refer, has given impetus to this kind of action, which is wholly deplorable. I refer to the Minister's decision to allow residential development on the Trosley Towers estate near Wrotham in Kent. That happens to be an area not merely in pretty rural surroundings but the last unbuilt escarpment of the North Downs.


It is an area which is already designated as one of exceptional landscape value. For eight or nine years it has been included in the proposed extension of the Metropolitan Green Belt and so far it has been treated by everyone as such in their dealing with planning matters. It is very shortly to be designated by the National Parks Commission, which is under a statutory duty to designate places of great natural beauty. This is not any ordinary stretch of land; it is an elevated piece of exceptionally outstanding beautiful English countryside.
Outline planning permission was given for some development of this site in 1952. How that outline planning permission was ever given is shrouded in mystery. Probably it would be unprofitable to try to pierce the folds of that mystery now, but, whatever the conditions in 1952, they have now altered. In 1952 there was an R.A.F. camp and squatters there. The squatters have been rehoused and there is now no local problem of that kind. Furthermore, there have been at least two public inquiries into the proposal. The first was conducted in 1958
by Mr. Buchanan, a very distinguished expert in this field, who, after hearing all the evidence, held:
If there is to be settlement at Trosley it must. I suggest, have a genuine social basis.
He went on to say, in paragraph 77 of his report:
I have considerable doubts about the social basis for this project … I have recorded the representations of the other interested parties at the Inquiry … there is evidence of a fair weight of responsible opinion that is firmly opposed to the whole idea of development on this site on the grounds that there is now no social justification for it and there is a risk of serious harm to amenities. For myself I share their misgivings to the full.
That is strong language for an inspector speaking in a judicial capacity who had listened to the evidence. At that time no further scheme came forward, but one of the curious features of town and country planning legislation is that even far a site of this kind where the application has been refused the developer, or other developers, can apply again and again. I should have thought there must come a time When finality is reached. It imposes very heavy burdens on local authorities and those fighting to preserve what is best in the countryside continually to have to rush troops to the battle.
The second inquiry took place and a more detailed scheme was put before the inspector this time. In his conclusion's he again found against the scheme. He said:
It is beyond dispute that those circumstances have changed radically in the last ten years and it therefore follows that revocation would be justified if the development then permitted is now considered to be undesirable. … In my view the arguments against the residential development on the Trosley Towers site are overwhelming.
He said:
It would have the disadvantage of housing little, if any, service labour on the site and would be essentially a one-sided community. It is not a social basis which I would recommend.
He found as a fact that the social basis of the scheme was a community of commuters, retired people in the middle and upper income groups. So there is no relief whatever in the towns in the Medway Valley and no relief whatever to those in need of houses in the village. This, as the inspector found as a matter of fact, was for commuters or retired people and those in the upper and middle income groups. Despite those two inquiries and the facts I have illustrated in my earlier remarks about development in Kent, the social services at the moment being hopelessly inadequate, the railways unable to cater for more people; yet the Minister has permitted this development. I hope that he will take advantage of this debate to give us some reasons why he has done so in the face of two inquiries and the fact that there is no social need, no roads or schools and all these services will have to be provided in an area which already is very short of them. If building can take place on a proposed extension of the Metropolitan Green Belt in an area of undoubted landscape value and one about to be designated as of exceptional beauty, building can take place anywhere. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of telling us why.
It is a depressing experience to go through many parts of Kent today. Much of the fault must be laid at the door of the Minister and even more so at the door of the Government who have allowed these conditions to operate over the last ten years. Kent used to be known as "the Garden of England". It is becoming the backyard of England, and a very shoddy one at that.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: The subject we are discussing tonight—town and country planning—is one of the most important subjects that we can discuss in the House. It is unfortunate that the debate must be so short. For that reason, I shall try to compress my remarks into as short a time as possible, confining them largely to London and the surrounding district, because I am a Londoner and I represent a constituency outside London. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take note of that expression.
What has happened since the war, as is clear from many paragraphs of the White Paper, is that in the centre of London and in the West End there has been an enormous increase in office building. That is a good thing, because the offices which have been built since the war are very much better, very much more sanitary, if you like to use the word, and very much pleasanter to work in than those which they have replaced. They have replaced other offices either because the others were knocked down by enemy action or because they were subsequently pulled down. The people who used to live in those parts of the West End and other parts of London which are now occupied by offices and business premises have moved out to the periphery because they find that they can get houses and accommodation there at a proper price, at a price which they can afford, and because they like the rural amenities to be enjoyed in the neighbourhood of their houses. The rural amenities consist almost entirely of the green belt that surrounds London.
Over 11 years ago when I made my maiden speech in the House, as nervous then as I still am, I pointed out that if it had not been for the foresight of our ancestors London would consist entirely of bricks and mortar from its centre to the outside. Places like Clapham Common, Streatham Common and open spaces in Wandsworth and all over the place would not have been left to us and our families who live round there for recreation and air if they had not in the past century and the centuries before that been left intentionally as open spaces. Now we have green belts, not only for the people who live there but for the whole of London when it chooses to go out and

get its recreation and fresh air in these places.
I want to deal first with travel between those outer parts and the centre. I will return to the green belts in a moment. To travel from homes on the outskirts to the centre a fast railway system is required. I know that nowadays many people make the journey in their cars. Indeed, if we go outside the House at the moment we can see the streets completely blocked with people going back to the outer parts of London and beyond, very often one to a car. I do not deal with that. I do not think that it is a sound principle. The proper way of moving these vast numbers of people nowadays is by electric railway.
Since the war there have been no new lines or additional lines built. It is true that owing to the enormous advances made before the war in electric travel many more trains carrying many more passengers can be run over the same lines than was possible in the days of steam. Saturation point has now been reached, and unless more lines are built the trains will become even more crowded than they are at present.
One reason for this is another change in post-war habits. All these people travel at the same time. A person travelling in the opposite direction during rush hour, or going in the same direction out of rush hour, can have the train practically to himself. If he tries to travel in the same direction as the crowd during rush hour, it is difficult to get into a carriage. Before the war rush hour was spread over a much longer period. It is now more compressed. For some reason for which I do not profess to offer an explanation, that is a change in the postwar habits of people working in the centre of London. One of the things the Minister should do in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport is to get the rush hour extended and also to have more rail facilities built. Then this problem of the people moving into their work and out again will be partially relieved, if not wholly relieved. It is a very important problem?
I come now to the very important matter affecting everybody who lives round London. I refer to the green belt. I reject entirely the argument of my hon. Friend


the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who suggested that it should be eroded. He said that there are various places which do not have a full amenity value. He could not name them, except as between railways, but he did not tell us which particular railway he had in mind.
Let me tell him that I will take him, if he cares to come, to a very attractive part of the green belt whose proprietor is anxious to sell it for building purposes and is able to obtain building permission. He has deliberately let that field or those fields, whichever it may be, down so that it looks unattractive. Application after application is made for building permission. One of the arguments that is frequently used is this—"Look at this depressing scene. We can grow nothing on it for farming purposes. Nobody wants the site. For goodness' sake, let us have some houses or flats put up here". Of course—because he could sell the land at an enormous price. That is what happens when people start talking of places of low amenity value.
We have heard all these arguments so often. They all come to exactly the same thing. One is to suggest that the land is of low amenity value; infilling is another one. I must include also "regional planning". They are all expressions which have only one object—that is, to build upon the green belt. One effect of having the green belt is that land which does have
planning permission increases in value, because land is one of those things of which we can manufacture no more. This country has only a limited amount of it, because we
are a small island. That is what we must face up to. We must accept that land anywhere near a town with building permission will be expensive.
The price that we pay is not the price of hard cash. The price we pay is to leave the rest of the land alone as open space where the people of the big towns can go and get fresh air and have pleasant views and get away from the bricks and mortar which they live in the whole time.
I have read the White Paper, as other hon. Members have. I do not propose to read paragraphs 64 onwards again. They are very vague. I do not know

exactly what is meant by them. I am sure that the Minister will explain them a little more fully. I remind my right hon. Friend that only last Wednesday when he and I were crossing swords when we were discussing London in another context, namely, the London Government Bill, he said this about part of the constituency I have the honour to represent, that particular part being Coulsdon and Purley:
… in the middle term I suggest that decent living for all the inhabitants of the Metropolis is very much in their own interests too.
Thinking that he might have some question in mind of building in the green belt, I interrupted him, something I am very loath to do, particularly as there was a Guillotine on, and said,
Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the green belt should be built on? It is the only building land we have left.
When I said "we", I meant we in Coulsdon and Purley. This is the reply my right hon. Friend gave me:
Not for a moment do I suggest that. I was not making that point, and I hope that my words did not lend themselves to that interpretation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1963: Vol. 672, c. 522.]
That was a clear statement on the part of the Minister, and I am gratified that he made it. It showed that he has not the slightest intention of allowing building to take place on the green belt at any time.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. and learned Friend is normally scrupulously fair in his remarks. On that occasion, however, I was in the middle of a spontaneous and serious speech about the fact that I was taking a decision. I knew that it was resented by a lot of people in his constituency. I was endeavouring to meet his argument regarding the building on certain land about which I knew his constituents were frightened. I was pointing out that a lot of empty land could be taken out of London under Clause 6. I did not have in my mind the whole question of the green belt, but merely his part of it, including the part which was being put in Greater London.

Mr. Doughty: I know that my right hon. Friend was making an important speech. Because this matter of the building on green belt land is a sore subject with me, I interrupted him. I think that my question at that time was needed as,


indeed, was his reply. If he now confines it to the green belt in Coulsdon and Purley, then I accept it because, after all, we were discussing that matter. However, even with that limitation, I must take his words as a complete undertaking that not an acre, not a square yard of the green belt in Coulsdon and Purley will be touched.
Is it any wonder that we are suspicious in my part of the world about what may happen to our green belt land when we talk in terms of regional planning? What does regional planning exactly mean? It means something which is supported by the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. It has been made clear that the Liberals intend that a central body should decide what should happen in districts in which they have really no representation. In other words, someone in Westminster—or, for the Greater London Council, someone in Lambeth—will decide whether building should take place anywhere within the region. It is no wonder that a number of people are concerned about decisions which may be taken by people who are a long way from the areas affected by those decisions.

Mr. Temple: Since I associated myself with the Leader of the Liberal Party on the question of regional planning. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) that, for my part, regional planning does not mean any attack on the green belt whatever. It has nothing to do with encroachment but with major strategic planning concepts.

Mr. Doughty: My hon. Friend represents a constituency, the City of Chester, which has no geen belt around it.

Mr. Temple: I must object. The City of Chester is entirely encompassed within the green belt.

Mr. Doughty: In which case I am showing my ignorance of the City of Chester, just as my hon. Friend is showing his ignorance of London. I thought that the Romans built a wall around that city. No doubt my hon. Friend will tell me later how far he has carried on the ancient Roman plan, good as it was. I can tell him that tremendous pressures are continually being placed on anyone

having anything to do with green belt land. The people putting on this pressure are most insistent that, whatever else happens, the land in which they are interested should be built upon; and that pressure will be exercised upon any regional council or whatever else may be set up. If that is the Liberal idea, let us have nothing to do with their ideas of such regional councils but, rather, let the local people decide.
Some people may say that East Surrey is being obstructive and does not want development. That is not so, because there are a large number of properties still standing, many of which were built in the 19th century, consisting of large houses with spacious gardens. They may have been useful when they were built—when people had domestic staffs, gas lighting and so on and could afford to maintain family gardens of three of four acres—but such premises are certainly not suitable for single family occupation these days. They are gradually coming on to the market with vacant possession at reasonable prices. Although they are not required as homes for individual families, they are being pulled down and replaced with houses at so many per acre. The number varies but where one is pulled down up to 20 new houses are erected in its place, subject to overbuilding not occurring, and this sort of development
has never been opposed by the people in the green belt constituencies. That sort of building is a natural development
which should be encouraged. It is far better than snipping bits off the green belt or causing the death of the green belt by a thousand cuts, as one Sunday newspaper described it.
I hope that the present Minister, like his predecessors, will carry on the good work of preserving the green belt and adding to it. Let us forget the Liberal ideas in this connection and stick to good, sound Conservative principles. Let us develop the available land in a modern way and keep London's surroundings in good order, protected by this generation for the next.

5.58 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I intend to follow the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) in his remarks about the green belt later in my speech. I would, first, like


to raise a number of points related to the White Paper concerning general planning matters.
I am sure that we all welcome the unexceptionable sentiments in the White Paper about the control of office development. We are pleased to note in paragraph 19 that the Government intend to encourage the taking of Government work outside central London as far as possible. It is more than a year ago since I ascertained the figures of the number of civil servants who could be moved to offices outside London. The Minister responsible told me that there were 212,000 such workers in Greater London, of whom 80,000 were engaged in headquarters works, excluding the Post Office.
Accepting that some of those 212,000 will be employed in local offices on the periphery, a considerable number of civil servants could be moved outside the London area. I am aware of the difficulties of doing this because in my constituency a high proportion of Post Office staff has been affected by the removal of the Savings Division to the North. I am satisfied, however, from correspondence and discussions I have had with my constituents, that
these difficulties could be overcome by a steady Government plan of dispersal. I hope that the remarks in the White Paper are not just pious sentiments but that they will be effectively followed up.
In paragraphs 17 and l8 the Minister sets out his reasons for not following something like the procedure in regard to industrial development certificates for commercial buildings. He says that to introduce such machinery depends upon knowledge of the firm which occupies the factory in the case of industrial premises and on an assessment of the need of that firm to carry on manufacture in a particular area. Then he says that if the procedure were followed in the case of offices it would be difficult because
… when the developer seeks planning permission he may not know how many tenants he will have or who his tenants will be; and these tenants may change at frequent intervals.
If the Minister's control of office development is to be effective he must have that knowledge about offices, a knowledge similar to that which the Board of Trade has about factories.
I can best illustrate this point by referring to what has been happening in

Middlesex over the last few years. The Minister would seem to be suggesting in the White Paper that by providing more office accommodation or land for office development outside the central area—and he mentions in particular Croydon, Watford, Ilford and Surbiton—by means of the Bill which we shall be considering shortly, and by the Location of Offices Bureau merely advising without any power, firms will remove themselves from the centre of London and go outside the intensely built-up area.
In Middlesex, between 1955 and 1961, encouragement was given to use land on the periphery for office development. During that period, 11,295,000 sq. ft. of land was approved for office development. But as at April of last year, on 6,325,000 sq. ft. of the 11 million no work had been started, despite the fact that it has been the policy over these years to make land available for office development on the periphery. More than half of the land has not had work started on it. Since 1962 a further 1,788,000 sq. ft. have been made available, but no work has yet been started on that.
It is perfectly true that of 121 firms
which took up office accommodation on the periphery of Middlesex and employed 8,148 people, 44 per cent. came from the central London area. Fifty per cent. had moved from other parts of Middlesex and only 6 per cent. had come into Middlesex from outside. This result was achieved not merely by making accommodation land available. It was achieved in the main because Middlesex County Council would not grant approval to firms unless they were in London or Middlesex. The council pursued this very firm policy and this may well explain why so much of the land available for offices has not been taken up.
This suggests that the Minister must put more teeth into his suggestions for the control of office development if it is to be effective. It is clear that the present measures will not produce the results
which he and all of us want. It is clear that he will need a great deal more information about the firms in London who require offices. He must have information about their needs and about what firms will occupy the office space which he hopes to provide outside the central area. I cannot see any


alternative to something like the industrial development certificate procedure if it is to be effective.
As to the need to make better use of the land within the Greater London area and in south-east England, with the problem of housing and with Ministers suggesting that much of the land in London will have to be used more effectively, we are brought back to the great problem of making better use of the rundown residential areas in the central part of the Greater London area. I have emphasised many times that the Minister still does not produce any plan to help solve this problem. These areas are in the main commercially unprofitable to redevelop, but they are areas where we shall have the biggest allocation of housing land without encroaching on the green belt or on the virgin countryside outside.
These are the areas which must be developed if we are to solve part of the London housing needs inside London. The Minister, however, has given no guidance on how the local authorities—which if it is commercially unprofitable are the bodies to do the job—are to be helped either with something like the old direct planning grant or deferred interest payments. This has been put to the Minister a number of times, but so far he has refused to commit himself.

Mr. Doughty: With respect, the hon. Lady is saying what I said earlier, but there is no need for the local authorities to do this. While land in central London is available there is plenty of private enterprise which at no public cost to anybody will put up first-class houses and flats.

Mrs. Butler: The difficulty about commercial developers coming into areas like this is that to make a scheme commercially profitable they tend to want to put up all kinds of commercial developments which are really not suitable in the areas. I have personal experience of one place where this has happened, and I know that it is true generally. Naturally they want to make commercially profitable schemes, and often this is not consistent with residential developments for families in greatest need, which is what we are seeking to provide inside London for homeless and other families who must live there.
The other point about redevelopment relates to the commercially profitable central area, and here I must say that I am sorry that so little is done by way of research into this question. We need a more impressive attack on research into the problem and greater co-ordination of the efforts made in central area redevelopment.
I mention central area redevelopment because it relates very closely to the south-east region. It is not only a matter of the redevelopment of the central areas of large cities. The map published in the middle of the White Paper shows towns all round London and actually inside London which are carrying out central redevelopment. Most of the authorities in Middlesex, for example, are considering schemes of this kind in isolation from one another.
I attended recently a conference of municipal engineers which was attended by the development officer of the Cooperative Union. His experience in each town is similar to that of the small traders who are so concerned about this development, but because the Co-operative Union is involved the experience is repeated all over the country. This officer, therefore, had a nation-wide impression of what traders are finding in their own separate towns. He was able to give illustrations of the way in which two towns quite close together were developing their central areas without recognising the fact that the development of the central area of one would inevitably affect the people going in to shop, the transport arrangements and the other requirements of the adjacent town. One cannot redevelop two towns side by side without the redevelopment of one having an effect upon the other.
We have made no studies of this kind in this country at all. The same is true if one applies it to the south-east region in relation to the reorganisation of London Government. The right hon. Gentleman is grouping together several boroughs in a new London borough. Each of the separate boroughs in the new borough may have its central area development scheme, and this may be affected by the fact that the new London borough will centralise in one particular area and the other centres will become less important.

Mr. Doughty: The hon. Lady has spoken of the co-operative societies and


their views. The last resolution I received from them advocated the municipalisation of all rented property. Does she agree with those views of the co-operative societies?

Mrs. Butler: I am tempted to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must know that what he is saying is completely irrelevant to the point I am making, which is of great concern not only to the Co-operative movement but to small traders and municipalities all over the country.
We need more research into the kind of pattern which is emerging throughout the country. I take the example of what is happening in Paris; there is no need to go as far as San Francisco. In Paris, a body has been set up, with £13 million available, to stimulate development in the city and for fifty miles round about. In the first year only, £500,000 is being made available for research. In this country, with building investment at £2,400 million, we have each year only £50,000 spent on planning research of all kinds.
With a problem such as that in the Greater London area, we cannot expect to get results unless we are prepared to do more in this respect. It has been suggested that we should do a great deal more through the universities, encouraging them to do planning research and set up planning departments on the same lines as at Leeds. There is a great need for this work to be done, and I hope that the Minister will encourage it. One hopes that the South-East study, when it is published, will prove to have touched on some of these points which are so important.
Now the green belt. The Minister has been very cunning about the green belt. He has put a colourful map at the centre of the White Paper; such a map is always a draw and tends to make people think, when they see the coloured areas and notice that the proposed additions to the green belt are more than twice the area of the existing green belt, that it is not a bad thing if some encroachment is made on the existing green belt. However, it is a matter for great concern. The green belt is essential for the health and amenities of people living in Greater London. I take the
part which is closest to my own constituency. That stretch of green belt is already an hour's journey from central London. Any encroach-

ment on it will mean that people will have to travel still further to reach any kind of open countryside.
What the Minister is saving, in effect, when he speaks of some land being of low amenity value is that some of the land is scruffy because it is close to the built-up area. The land around towns has always been rather scruffy, ever since primitive days when men threw their meat bones outside the encampments where they lived and made the outskirts of their primitive settlements rather scruffy and untidy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Men only?"] "Men" is a collective term including women as well.
This is a process which can go on indefinitely. If one takes away scruffy land on the immediate outskirts, a further stretch of land becomes scruffy or of low amenity value, and so one can go on nibbling away until there is no green belt left.
I am concerned about this map which the Minister has put in to gild the lily, as it were. There is no indication in the White Paper that he will accept any of the additions. They are to be considered, but there is no indication that he will accept them. It is rather misleading to insert a map in this way so that people may feel reassured that, if they lose a little bit of the existing green belt, they will have a lot more added somewhere else. There is no guarantee that it will be added at all.
I accept that the Minister, with the best of intentions, would probably like to take in some of the additional green belt which has been proposed, but I prefer what I know to something vague which may never materialise. I am sure that this is the feeling of most of the citizens of Greater London.
The Minister stressed that he would rely on proposals from local authorities with regard to encroachments on the green belt. I put it to him that local authorities are very greatly helped if they have behind them a Minister who is firm in resisting encroachments. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey. East spoke about pressures. They are enormously strong. If a local authority is under pressure to accept encroachment on the green belt, it will not be helped by the knowledge that the Minister has said that in certain circumstances he will give way, which, in effect is what he has said. Already today,


immediately after publication of the White Paper, I have been asked what I think will happen to the green belt in my own area. Already the spies are out looking for the possible places where building could take place.
A word now about the new towns. I was concerned, as I have been in the past, by the Minister's references to increasing the amount of housing in places like Harlow and Stevenage. In my view, it is a mistake to try to make the new towns too big. I hope that the replies he receives in due course from these towns will be such that he will not proceed with the idea. There is a school of thought which believes that all the facilities of a town can reasonably be provided within a population of 30,000. I myself very much favour this idea. I do not like enormous new towns. I think that they are a mistake in that respect, and I think that they are a mistake also if they are too close to the conurbations. This is something which the Minister should watch very carefully because there is some ground for thinking that both Redditch and Runcorn are too close to the conurbations which they are supposed to relieve.
We are told that a second generation of new and expanded towns will be considered in the course of the regional plan which is to follow the South-East study. This could be years ahead. We need the new towns now. We need to know immediately where they are likely to be. There has already been emphasis on the importance of communications. It would be quite ridiculous to have proposals for further new towns to relieve the southeast region many years ahead when branch lines have already been closed and communications are more difficult for both goods and people.
Finally, I should like to stress this point. The whole purpose of planning our towns—south-east England is largely a region of towns—is to provide for the convenience and delight of the people who live in them. All of us in this Committee are concerned about how little convenience and how little delight there is in south-east England, which, nevertheless, is a magnet drawing people from other parts of the country. The Minister has a great responsibility, in view of all that has been said to him about green belt

encroachments which have been made in south-east England, in trying to stem the rot which has set in in so many areas and to make this country a more delightful place for people to live in. In the twentieth century we should not have to put up with the misery which we are suffering because of bad planning but should be making a determined effort to plan for the benefit of the people who live here.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), I have been trained as a contractor and estate developer. I have given my views on land and land developments in previous debates. In the batting order, I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and I have generally gone to the wicket in succession, and we have not always agreed on the points made. I was interested to hear what she had to say, particularly her resentment about the fact that the Minister had not brought in industrial development certificates for offices. I take issue with her on this point, because the White Paper clearly sets out why such certificates cannot be given for offices. The problem of office development and office occupation is so different from that of factory development that it is impracticable to do what the hon. Lady suggests. The majority of offices are not occupied by a single tenant as is usually the case with commercial factory undertakings.
There has been a good deal of talk about the pros and cons of the green belt. I have expressed the view on previous occasions that the green belt must have a purpose. It should be either an area of natural
beauty which we want to preserve or a public recreation ground from which the public can fully benefit, or it should be a productive farmstead producing food for the nation. I am sure that Wimbledon Common was once considered to be in the green belt.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) referred to the green belt in his constituency I reminded myself that as a younger man I built a large number of houses in his constituency. The people who were then only too glad to have houses for their own occupation are now


wanting to make sure that people do not live beside them. I do not think they fully appreciate what they are doing in wishing to prevent other people from having facilities similar to their own. I still maintain that the green belt must be maintained, but it must be maintained for a specific purpose.
I wish to make a special point on the question of offices as dealt with in paragraphs 16 to 24 of the White Paper. This is a problem which is generally half understood but not fully appreciated. I am particularly interested in the survey of the south-east area because I have the honour to represent Folkestone and Hythe, which is on the outer fringe of this area. Our unemployment figures do not have the impact of the unemployment figures in the North-East, but, because of a series of factors, we have a very high unemployment figure for this part of England, 4·4 after seasonal adjustments have been made. We have a large number of schools, and a large proportion of the school population leaves each year. We do not consider that we should compete with the North-East for factories for heavy industries. We consider that our rôle should be in decentralising offices from London, particularly as we have an adequate and fast train service.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to elaborate on the White Paper and to tell us how he intends to give advice and direction under the Location of Offices Bureau. Folkestone is an area which can make a real contribution to the decentralisation of London. Traffic to Folkestone would be going against the rush hour traffic. We have a natural green belt because we have the Channel, a permanent amenity, at the side of us. It seems to me that we are in a perfect situation to encourage the development of offices.
Will my right hon. Friend—and I speak for all South Coast towns—give some indication as to how the Offices Bureau would operate and how local authorities can get in contact with him in order that they may put their point of view. Does he propose to indicate to local authorities which firms are thinking about decentralising? Will he set up a form of sales bureau where he can display the wares of each locality and tell the authorities how they can get in touch with likely firms? This is a real problem from our point of view.
I note from paragraph 19 (a) of the White Paper that the Government intend
to make planning control over new office building still more effective".
I welcome that. I should like there to be more effective planning control, but I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that we are passing through the House the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill which will make a number of offices obsolete. The terms and conditions of that Measure will create a very big demand for new and modern office accommodation. Therefore, this Bill presents my right hon. Friend with a splendid opportunity to bring about the creation of new offices in areas outside the centre of London.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Why not set them up in Scotland?

Mr. Costain: It would be advantageous to do that in many cases. My own company has moved offices to Scotland, so I therefore speak with some knowledge of the problem. But it is uneconomical for many people to set up offices in Scotland. It would be silly to say to a firm which trades between London and Paris, "You must have an office in Edinburgh". Hon. Members often think that all one has to do is to set up a control and everything will be all right. All that I am pleading for is that there should be common sense in this matter. We do not want negative planning; we want positive planning. We give industrialists the opportunity to judge from the information which they have been given where they want their offices. We do not subscribe to the usual parrot cry, "Come up to Scotland, whether you like it or not. We want you, we need you, but we do not care whether this affects you or the prosperity of your business."
We now have a unique planning opportunity. We have passed the postwar era when we had to redevelop to get over the bomb scars. We are now in an era when we want to plan for the future, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that he is fortunate in having the opportunity of being in office at this time.
In dealing with regional planning, we must take full cognisance of the fact that populations are made up of human beings. One hon. Member referred to the development of the new towns and said that more people should not be


pushed into the new towns. He overlooked the fact that the majority of new towns
are populated by one age group. New factories have taken the young employees. If we could introduce another type of individual, the elder person, we would get over quite a problem. The regional organisation could give consideration to these points.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is waiting to speak, so I will detain the Committee only one more
minute. I merely ask for further consideration to be given to the spreading of the rush hour. I am sure that, in our planning organisation, communications have not been given sufficient importance. I am certain that insufficient consideration has been given to peak load traffic.
I should like my right hon. Friend to advise us which Government Department could give a lead in this matter. It overlaps a number of Departments and probably concerns the Ministry of Labour, the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend himself. Is it not possible to have a wider timetable so that people spread the load of their travel? Could not shops arrange different opening and closing hours to enable the peak load on the buses to be varied? We have done a good deal with our licensing hours to stop the peak load in that connection. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how he thinks all this can best be achieved?

6.33 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): This has been a debate full of interesting speeches. I only regret that so few hon. Members have been present to hear them. I shall pick out the main themes and I apologise to hon. Members whose detailed points I shall not answer. They will, however, agree that sufficient strategic questions have been raised to keep me busy trying to answer them.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) made a vigorous and interesting speech, and I was grateful for the moments of kindness which he extended towards me. He was, of course, rewarded by hearing earlier today that his own constituency has been scheduled as a development district.
The White Paper is, as both hon. Members this afternoon and The Times this

morning have described it, the first instalment of the South-East Regional Plan. It was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who, when Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, first recognised the trends that were rapidly changing the assumptions on which planning has to be based. We all now take it for granted that the population has been leaping ahead and that the number of separate households is rising even more rapidly than population because of early marriages, longer survival in retirement and a generally increased level of prosperity.
We must not, however, assume that that was obvious so many years ago. It is true that from the late 1950s it was gradually becoming clear that there was much that was wrong in the assumptions that had been based upon the immediately post-war projects of population. But it was not until the 1961 census that the full scale of the rise in the population and of households came to be appreciated. It was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who set in hand the surveys which are now coming to fruition.
The hon. Member for Widnes and other hon. Members have asked whether those surveys have been the result of Governmental as opposed to purely departmental initiative. I assure the Committee that they are
being prepared by representatives of all the Departments concerned. The South-East survey, which will be the first to be ready, will be ready in about the autumn of this year. A little later there will come the surveys of the North-West and the Midlands, to be followed by those of the North-East and elsewhere.
On those surveys we shall build, in the closest collaboration with the local planning authorities, regional plans for each area. Each regional survey, and, therefore, each regional plan, will seek to look twenty years ahead and to predict the demands for land in the region that will arise during those twenty years; so that on the basis of that information the local planning authorities, co-ordinated by the Government in their approval of the development plans, will be able to make suitable provision. It is an essential and important part of this whole procedure that the surveys, and the regional plans based upon them, which will cover twenty


years head, will be reviewed at least every ten years to keep them up to date with newly developing trends.

Mr. J. T. Price: I hope that when dealing with the north-west of England, part of which I have the honour to represent, the Minister will bear in mind that as far back as 1954 the Lancashire County Council carried out the most comprehensive survey ever conducted in this country and that all the documents have been available for his persual. It was a far-reaching survey never equalled elsewhere in the country.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the trends which have come recently to light were available even to the Lancashire County Council at that time.
It may be that I should have advised the Government to delay the issue of the White Paper until the South-East survey was available to be published with it. It would then have been seen as part of a regional study as preparation for a regional plan. I think, however, that the Committee will sympathise with me and agree that the Town and Country Planning Bill, which was introduced yesterday, is a Measure which
has been generally welcomed and that there would have been no point in delaying its introduction. If, on the other hand, I had introduced the Bill on its own, it would have made it appear that the Government's total policy for London was one of restriction concerning offices and that that was that. That would not have represented the total Government strategy in dealing with London's employment, housing and land.
We must accept, as I hope the Committee will, that it is not practicable to restrict London's commercial vitality. It is no good having housing without jobs, and London's commercial vitality is essential to the wellbeing of the country as a whole. Consequently, what we have sought to do by a combination of measures, of which the Bill is one, is so to arrange things that, by the normal incentives of business, more and more employers of office labour will see fit to start new offices and, indeed, to move existing offices away from the congested central London area to areas where there can be new offices in close touch with

new housing and with good transport facilities.
That is why to have presented the Bill
on its own, and to have waited six or more months before presenting the White Paper with the Survey would have given a wrong impression. The Bill will enable local planning authorities to take sensible decisions on planning in the congested areas without having to face the threat that now exists of having to pay heavy compensation.
But the White Paper makes it clear that we are also following a policy of encouraging office centres outside London; of trying to move more Government staff outside London, and of setting up the Location of Offices Bureau to make sure that employers have the necessary information. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I hope very soon to be in a position to set up the Bureau. As soon as it is set up it should be able to give valuable advice, and I will make a statement on bow it will operate.
I do not, therefore, apologise for issuing a White Paper in advance of the Survey. Perhaps now I should come to the
strategy which lies behind the White Paper and which will lie behind the other regional surveys when they go forward. Hon. Members may say that some of these statements are platitudes, but a platitude is a truth which is accepted, and I am sure that hon. Members will be glad to hear that the Government are operating on the basis of regional coordination of jobs, housing and transport.
We must recognise that there are four methods for solving the regional problems in the areas of most congestion. Last week the Government announced that there would be new towns for Birmingham and Liverpool, and provision on the scale of a new town for Manchester. This week the Government produced their White Paper about housing for London and, of course, we are dealing in all these four places with the hearts of the most congested areas in the country, where the pressure upon the land available for all sorts of worthy uses is at its height. We cannot, therefore, look to find our land by a single method on its own. We have at once and simultaneously to use four separate ways of finding the land.
First, we have to develop with more intensity, and that means higher density inside our cities. We have to find more land and the Committee will be glad to see that in London, as announced in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the White Paper, we have not been totally unsuccessful. I am sure that the Greater London Council will be able, with unified planning control over the Metropolis, to be even more successful in finding more land.
I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Hocking), my hon. Friend for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) who have urged on the Government the importance of providing for the renewal of decaying and twilight areas in our cities. That is close to my heart. But we have to recognise priorities. We must, first of all, be able to meet the housing shortage and to replace the worst slums before we can in each city turn to the necessary, but not quite so urgent, job of replacing the twilight areas of houses.
What I have to say now will be news to the Committee and not very palatable. I hate to have to give it. I had hoped to announce that by the middle of the year I would be able to publish a bulletin giving the Government's first ideas of procedures whereby we should he able to tackle the renewal of such areas, as each city dealt with its worst slums. But on examining the subject I find that it bristles with an unexpected number of difficulties. I shall not, therefore, be ready by the middle of the year.
Studies are going ahead as fast as they can be driven, and I hope to carry out, before long, studies in which the local authorities and private bodies can cooperate to learn the lessons which may be drawn. It is still my first objective to produce such a trial policy so that, as the years pass, as the shortage of houses is eliminated and as the slums are pulled down, each city can be ready to tackle this massive renewal job. I express my sympathy with the purpose of hon. Members in expounding the importance of this matter, but I am not quite ready for that stage yet.
As I was saying, we have to deal with finding land in congested areas by four different methods. I have indicated the first, which is to find and use, to the maximum civilised density, areas within the cities themselves. The second method is dispersal to new towns and expanded towns.
The last ten years have seen a vigorous development by the Government of the new towns in the South-East and by the L.C.C.—all credit to it of the expanded towns which have brought so much relief to London. We hope that, in the new and expanded towns that serve it, London will have available during the next ten years probably some 80,000 additional dwellings. But we shall inevitably need a second generation of dispersed communities. As the White Paper says, it is premature to measure exactly how many we shall need until we have the results of the South-Eastern survey. What we commit ourselves to doing is to consider, as soon as the survey is available, what the scale of the need will be so that we can then study the relevance of a second generation of new and expanded towns.
We shall bring this forward as soon as possible, but it would not have been sensible to wait for the survey, and with the best will in the world this new generation of towns cannot provide substantial numbers of houses for some years. I hope that they will begin to supply them before the ten-year period is over, but the build-up to substantial supplies will probably be at the end of the period.
Now I turn from London to the Midlands. There is a difference between the housing needs of London, where the prime requirement is more houses because of the shortage, and the main housing needs of Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, where there are shortages but where the prime need is to make quicker headway against the very large number of slums. This is well known to the Committee, which will also know that the Government have set in hand, with the enthusiastic co-operation of the local authorities, an accelerated slum-clearance programme.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), in preparation for this, started the Northern Office and initiated the procedure that led to the designation


of Skelmersdale as the new town for Liverpool, and Dawley as the new town for Birmingham; and he knew that Manchester was making provision of the new town type at Westhoughton.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was a little grudging in his welcome to Redditch and Runcorn. Let us be realistic. There is not likely to be, at any one moment, enough industry on the wing to be able to meet the needs of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the North-East and to supply firms in an indefiinte number of new towns and expanded towns all simultaneously. Surely it is sensible, with Skelmersdale and Dawley, already designated as new towns for Birmingham and Liverpool, to put our next new town in such a position that it will undoubtedly become a balanced community and can start providing houses for people to match the accelerated slum-clearance schemes of Birmingham and Liverpool even before industry, if necessary, goes there.
I was grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) who said that there were advantages in expanding an existing healthy community—to which I would add the additional advantage of the presence of a third generation, in the number of grannies and baby sitters, which do not exist, naturally, when we start a new town completely from scratch. In the case of Birmingham and Liverpool, there is also the fact that industry in these cities is not quite as mobile as it may be in other places, and we therefore cannot expect to get a substantial transfer of industry straight away; although I am sure that, over the years, much industry will be able to move from those cities.
There is a great deal that expanded towns still have to contribute. In answer
to hon. Members who have asked, I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, after giving first priority to development districts, then does his best to steer industry to new and expanded towns. It so happens that the constituency of Widnes will now qualify both as an expanded town and as a development district; although I do not congratulate the hon. Member for

Widnes on the last, nor would he wish to be so congratulated.
After providing for the maximum use of all land which can be discovered within the cities, and after arranging for the maximum practicable dispersal, there will still remain in London, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool, people who have not houses, or whose houses are slums, or who live in overcrowded conditions and whose work cannot be moved out of the big cities. That is inevitable, and it is for them that the Government have made provision in all their statements and in the White Paper for land to be found within commuter distance. Most of this land will not have to be in the green belt, but some of it will be. These no doubt will be rare cases, but after public inquiry, and with Ministerial approval and, I hope, in all cases except one, which I shall mention, on the initiative of the local authority some areas might have to be used for housing.
Let me explain the situation in each of these four cities. We recently had an inquiry about Liverpool's application for more land on its periphery in the Lancashire green belt. An inquiry was held, but a decision was deferred pending publication of the North-West survey. This was made public. In my statement last week, I said that now that we have made arrangements to give a second new town to Liverpool, we must first discuss with Liverpool the scale of its programme, and then go to Lancashire to see whether some peripheral land which was mentioned by Liverpool in its application for land in the green belt at the recent inquiry might perhaps, in part or whole, have to be released for Liverpool. Here the initiative lay with Liverpool. There has already been an inquiry and the next stage is discussions with Lancashire County Council.
In the case of Birmingham and Manchester, there has not been a recent application by the local authorities which is now outstanding for use of peripheral land, be it in the green belt or not. In these two cases, what my statement of last week invited the local authorities of Birmingham and Manchester to do was to study their accelerated slum clearance programme and to measure against it the land now available; to see what


use they could make by quicker procedure under the Town Development Act; and, if there still remained a shortage of land for reaching and maintaining a much faster slum-clearance programme, to discuss their needs with the county councils and, by implication, in due course to come to me.

Mr. J. T. Price: The Minister has referred to what he called land available to Manchester and the other large cities and within commuter distance. What has he in mind as being commuter distance? The traffic congestion in the Manchester conurbation is now so appalling that there is no solution on these lines.

Sir K. Joseph: It is for the local authorities concerned to put proposals to me. It is for their initiative.
I now turn to that part of the land, still needed, within access of the work in the great cities, despite all the more intensive development within the cities and despite all the dispersal arrangements, which cannot be found outside the green belt. I stress to the Committee that I would expect after all has been said and done that a very small part only of the green belt—that is the approved green belt around London and the draft green belts in the Midlands—would fall to be developed. The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green objected to my having included in the White Paper the draft green belt which lies outside the approved Metropolitan green belt and asked how she would know whether any part of the draft green belt would ever come to be approved. I can assure her that I would expect successors of mine, after all the work on the survey and regional plans has been done, to find it possible to approve substantial parts of the draft green belt. Even after the very small part which might have to be taken has been used for housing, the green belt for the Metropolis will be very much larger than the approved London green belt is today.
I have said that the initiative in all cases except one will lie with the local authorities, and I think that it would help the Committee if I gave it one example of the sort of area where changes might be considered. The example I have in mind, the only

example I have in mind for London, is the Lea Valley. A good deal of land is covered or surrounded by glasshouses, some of which are falling into disuse as the horticultural use in this area becomes increasingly difficult. These holdings are no adornment to the green belt and there is a heavy problem of dereliction to be faced, for it is doubtful whether there is any practical prospect of keeping many of the glasshouses in this area in use in the long term. Nor does it seem likely that anyone could face the expense of clearing them and removing their foundations so that the land could be put to normal agricultural use.
There seems therefore, to be a case for taking a fresh look at the future of this land, especially as the railway lines serving this area have some spare capacity. In view of this, I am asking London County Council, as an authority which can represent the need for more housing land for London, to examine the possibilities here with the local planning authorities concerned, that is, Hertfordshire and Essex.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: As my right hon. Friend's example of the Lea Valley lies mainly in my constituency, may we take it that the intention is that there should be a welcome contribution to housing land in this derelict nurseryland without in any way weakening the general principle and operation in the Lea Valley of the green belt which we value so highly? Secondly, will not my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are local housing needs and that we shall expect priority for local needs in local land?

Sir K. Joseph: I think I can welcome that intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend almost wholeheartedly, but I should like to study every careful word of it first.

Mrs. Butler: When the right hon. Gentleman said London County Council, did he mean Middlesex County Council, or did he include Middlesex County Council?

Sir K. Joseph: May I think about that, too? I have in mind London County Council taking the initiative.
I must come now to one or two other major questions. My hon. Friend the


Member for Coventry. South (Mr. Hocking) and the hon. Member for Widnes attacked the delays in planning both at local planning authority level and at the appeal level. I am sure that they will recognise that planning requires very complex consideration of all the manifold conflicting interests which exist and that local planning authorities do their best. Nevertheless, both at that level and at the appeal level I am not satisfied. I am sure that they will recognise that it is difficult to speed up things when the Franks Committee has rightly insisted on scrupulous attention to the interests concerned. However, I am studying what can be done and I shall be happy if I am able to make some progress in this direction.
Finally, to try to sum up this short but interesting debate; we have been discussing both the statement of last week and the White Paper of today in the general context of planning. What we have been discussing are the inescapable needs for housing of London, Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester, and I think that, in general, I can take it that the Committee approves the strategic regional proposals which the Government have put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,654,095,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the following Civil Departments and for the Ministry of Defence for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1964.

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would be good enough to rule on this matter of which I have given you notice.
This is the first Bill to be presented by one of the nationalised transport Boards as successors to the British Transport Commission, and I think that, following precedent, it is customary for the Chair to give a ruling as lo the scope of debate, matters which are in order and matters which are not in order, on the Second Reading of this Bill. May I ask if, for the guidance of this House, you would be good enough to give us that information.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that this is a general purposes Bill. Therefore, anything which
is concerned with the administration of the railways can be discussed. In this particular Bill, however, there are certain exceptions which do not fall within its scope, namely, anything to do with hotels, fares in London and certain port charges. Otherwise the debate can go pretty wide.

Mr. Hay: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as I am sure the whole House will be, for your Ruling.

Mr. John Dugdale: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months".
I recognise the need for a Bill. Quite plainly, there must be a Bill, and it would be absurd to say that the Railways Board should have brought in no Bill at all. Much of the Bill is admirable, much of it will be agreed upon without exception, but there are certain parts of it which will not be agreed upon.
If I may, so to speak, declare my interest, I should like to say at the outset that I am speaking basically on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which has objected to the Bill. The Association has had a number of letters from various people in different parts of the country. I understand that the Members representing constituencies or places such as Brighton, Cambridge, Dagenham, Derby, Fleetwood, Folkestone, Godalming, Hendon, Maidstone, Salford, Shrewsbury and Wembley have all been written to with reference to this Bill. They have all received some kind of protest. Some of them are here today,
some are not. One of my hon. Friends representing Salford asked me particularly to say that he took an interest in this. He could not be present but hoped I would raise the question.
Finally, the list includes West Bromwich. In addition, it is right to say that the County Councils Association is also gravely concerned about this Bill, although it has not acted in quite the same way as the Association of Municipal Corporations.
The objection is not to the whole Bill but mainly to Clause 34. That is a very widely drawn, indiscriminate Clause. It is a Clause which cancels a large number of obligations which the railways previously had. If the House will bear with me, I think it might be an advantage if I were to read a portion of the Clause. It deals with contractual obligations and it says:
any obligation of the Board under any deed, conveyance, covenant, agreement or other similar instrument to provide or maintain any railway services or facilities (including the provision of stations, sidings or carriages and of any services, facilities or amenities connected therewith), being an obligation which was entered into by any predecessor of the Board as the consideration or part of the consideration for the grant or conveyance, or any agreement for the grant or conveyance, to such predecessor of any land or interest in land for the purposes of, or in connection with, any railway or works connected therewith".
I apologise for the length of that quotation, but I think it should be on record. Roughly speaking, it means that in the past the private railway companies wanted to run their lines through certain places, so, I understand, agreement was reached with the owners of those particular properties that they could do so, but on condition that they themselves carried out certain obligations, and it is the obligations that the railways had to carry out which are in question here today. It is these obligations which I understand the railways now do not wish to carry out, and it is these obligations about which the local authorities are disturbed.
May I for a moment consider which agreements are to be set aside. Mr. Speaker, the list is so vague, so long—as hon. Members will have understood from my reading of it—and the time is so short that had there not been this objection to the Bill it would have been impossible to have petitioned against the removal of any of these obligations. In many cases, the local authorities think a certain
obligation should still be maintained by the railways. Others they think should not be maintained, but they can get no list of obligations. They can-

not collect the information necessary in time to make petitions in regard to certain obligations. It is in order to see that this matter is cleared up and does not go by default, as it would have done otherwise had this Bill not been objected to, that I took occasion to object to it so that we might discuss it tonight.
As a result, the first thing that has happened is that a letter has been received from the solicitor to the railways, who said that there was no intention of setting aside all these obligations. That is all right as far as it goes, but a letter is not a law, and it is very important that we should get more than just a letter from the solicitor. A letter could, of course, be altered if circumstances changed later on.
What did these agreements deal with, and what are the obligations which were entered into? I will mention a few of them. They deal with level crossings, stations, sidings for refuse disposal or public abbatoirs, embankments, tunnels, fences and all protection works. What it would appear to mean is that if the railways so decide they could say that some particular tunnel or embankment need be kept up no longer. It might fall in, it might even cause an accident as a result of falling in, but nothing need be done about it. The railways would disown all responsibility and that would be the end of it.
Not only that, but there is also the very important question of footpaths. In West Bromwich alone, my own constituency, there are two level crossings and twelve roads or footpaths which could be affected. I imagine they could be closed or done away with altogether if the railways felt so disposed.

Mr. Hay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am glad to see it, but that was what appeared to me to be the position, subject to something which I shall mention later, which the Minister knows about.
Even in the case of my own constituency, we had to find out how many roads and footpaths would be affected, and in the case of many other constituencies they have probably not discovered it yet and it would have been too late for them to discover it had not this objection not been raised.
I want to make one thing very clear indeed, and that is that I am only talking here about local authorities. I am not entering into the question of private agreements. There may be others who wish to do so. In particular, I am not entering into the question of the Duke of Beaufort's agreement. I am sure we are all sorry for him. Apparently he is a very distressed man. It is a sad thing; here is this great gentleman who unfortunately finds that there is no railway station between Swindon and South Wales at which a train will stop and he has to go in his motor car to Swindon. It is a great hardship for him, and we are distressed that it could happen to him, but that is not the point I am bringing up at the moment. I am not concerned, for instance, with the question discussed by the Daily Express when it said that apparently the last occasion when the Duke asked an express to halt was just before Christmas for the benefit of a party travelling from Badminton House to London. I am not worried about that, however distinguished the party might have been. However, I am worried about what is being done about the obligations of local authorities. It is a point which should be brought up and which the House should discuss.
Why has the Bill been brought in? I think it is because of the Government's determination to make the railways pay at all costs. The railways are today providing, so far as I can see, increasingly a service for the rich rather than for the poor. I will give an instance. I frequently have occasion when visiting my constituency to go in a train which stops at only one place on the way. It is not a little village where somebody might want to get into a train. It is the suburb of Solihull where all the millionaires of Birmingham live. The train is full of millionaires and the fortunate Members of Parliament who go on it. This shows the kind of policy which is being followed, and it is a very unfortunate one.
There is one luxury which the railways do not want to give up. I speak with considerable diffidence, because many people know far more about it than I do. It is the luxury of dieselisation, which has deprived our coal mines of many chances of disposing of coal. I am not sure that dieselisation has been a successful experiment. The other day when I was on my way back from Birmingham the train

stopped—for more than half an hour. I asked the ticket collector why it had stopped and he said "It is quite simple. It has just run out of fuel." I never heard of that happening in the day of the steam train, but it happened in this case. It was the first occasion I had ever known of a train kept waiting for over half an hour because it had run out of fuel. I suppose someone ran back and fetched some more.
This kind of luxury has to be paid for, and it is a very expensive operation. One of the methods of paying for it is to get rid of these obligations. That is why it is important that we should discuss whether the railways should get rid of these obligations or not.
The Bill is ruthless, vague and dictatorial. I am glad to see, however, that there appears to be some change of heart on the part of the railways, because they find that unexpectedly, apparently Parliament takes some interest in what they do and so they are not able to be dictators in their own house. An open letter has been sent from the Railways Board to the Association of Municipal Corporations suggesting a possible Amendment, in Clause 34, page 24, line 5, after "facilities" insert
for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway".
That is definitely an improvement. It limits the amount of obligations which the railways can get out of. But I am not certain that it is enough.
What the Association of Municipal Corporation would really like—I sincerely suggest to the Minister that he should ascertain whether this can be secured—is that the words "facilities or amenities" in line 7 should be deleted altogether. I understand that this would cover most of the objections. It is true that this is a very complicated Clause, but I think that if those words were deleted it would enable the railways to do much of the work that they want to do and get rid of many of the obligations which are unnecessary but at the same time to retain those obligations which the municipal corporations and the county councils consider desirable.
If this can be done, I believe that the Bill will go through unopposed without any further difficulty. The Bill has many excellent features. I hope that, having heard this plea and having heard other


hon. Members speak, the Minister will eventually be able to say that the railways can consider the possibility of deleting the words I mentioned. If they can do so, I think the Bill will go through with the concurrence of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association as well.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. John Dugdale) has very clearly put the case for the objection of the local authorities to the Bill, and in particular to Clause 34. But it is not only the local authorities which object to the Clause. It is not only the landed gentry with the private stations who object to it.
The Clause seems to me to give extensive powers of compulsory purchase, and the House has always been very careful about granting these either to a nationalised body or to local authorities. In granting powers of compulsory purchase, whether compulsory purchase of land, easements or rights such as in Clause 34, the House has always given the person from whom the rights are to be acquired two protective rights. The first is the right to question whether the compulsory acquisition can be justified—whether, even though the power to acquire compulsorily has been given by Statute, it is right to exercise it in the particular case. The second protective right to the person on whom the right is to be acquired is that of having the price properly valued, generally by the Lands Tribunal.
The Clause certainly gives that second right so far as the valuation of the price is concerned, but it gives no right to the person from whom the property or the rights are to be acquired to question whether the acquisition in a certain case is justified. The result is that by the Clause the Board is the complete judge of what right, property or easement it shall take away from anybody, and no one can say it nay. The unfortunate victim can only go to the Lands Tribunal and say, "My property was worth so much. I want compensation for it." As to questioning whether it is the right thing to do, there is no public inquiry and no appeal to the Minister that the victim can have. The Board has com-

plete power under the Clause to destroy contractual rights.
As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, Clause 34 (2) says that:
No action or other proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Board for the purpose of enforcing any contractual obligation or awarded obligation.
Subsection (1) describes what is meant by "contractual obligation", saying that it
means any obligation of the Board under any deed, conveyance, covenant, agreement or other similar instrument to provide or maintain any railway services or facilities".
I repeat "any" and "facilities", because these are very wide words. The subsection goes on:
(including the provision of stations, sidings or carriages and of any services, facilities or amenities connected therewith)".
These are very extensive words, and there is no description in the Bill of exactly what contracts the Board wishes statutorily to break.
Under this Clause the Board could, without any public inquiry, and without any appeal to the Minister, close a level crossing which might split a farm or a village in half. The Board could take away the rights of fencing. There are many instances in which the railways have the responsibility of providing fencing to prevent cattle straying on to the railway line. The Board could destroy these contractual obligations. The Board has a duty to support the land by embankments, to support the land above a tunnel, and so on. These are contractual obligations which could be destroyed willy-nilly by Clause 34. Many factories have extremely valuable rights to have sidings. Clause 34 would enable the Board to escape those obligations.
I do not know of any other case in which the House has given these wide powers without stating exactly the land, or the property, or the right over which they are to be exercised. One need only refer to other Clauses in this Bill to see that that is so. Clause 18 gives the Board power to acquire land. The Board is also given power to close level crossings, but in all those instances there are subsections which provide the right to compensation. Not only that, but the Clauses and the Schedule specify the actual land, or the actual level crossing, which is to be taken away.
The individual who is entitled to the rights of that land, or the rights to go through a particular level crossing, or whatever it may be, will, by this Bill, know exactly what is being taken from him. He has the right to petition this House or the other place. He has a right to be heard, and to have judgment as to whether this is the right way to exercise these rights over his level crossing, but those who will be subject to Clause 34 will not know what they are to lose before this Bill is passed. Clause 34 does not specify the contract which is to be broken, or the property which is to be taken, and the individual will not have a right to petition against this Bill and say, "You do not need my property. You do not need to take away my right". He will not have that right to petition or call for any public inquiry. He will not be able to appeal to anyone. The Board will be able to exercise its rights completely and dictatorially under Clause 34 as it stands.
I heard for the first time from the right hon. Gentleman that there had been an offer to amend this Clause to add after "facilities" the words "for the carriage of passengers and goods by rail". That does not get us out of the difficulty with regard to sidings or level crossings. These are still facilities for the carriage of passengers or goods by rail.
I do not think that any Amendment of that sort would make Clause 34 satisfactory. It would not avoid this serious constitutional point that previously when Parliament has given powers of compulsory acquisition it has given to the individual, the victim of these powers, the right to question in some way or other, either by petition to this House or some appeal to a Minister, the exercise of the power against him. Clause 34, whether it stands as at present drafted, or is amended in the way suggested, deprives the individual of that right, and this is not the sort of power which we should give even to a nationalised industry.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I am not satisfied with the suggested Amendment, because the elimination of the phrase "railway services or facilities" leaves the words

including the provision of stations, sidings or carriages
and other services, and the qualification of limiting this to the carriage of passengers and goods does not, in my view, meet the case.
I appreciate that there is a certain amount of reason behind this proposal. The case of the Duke of Beaufort has been referred to, and there are probably hundreds of cases in which, perhaps a hundred years ago, agreements were made by the railway companies to provide certain facilities to individuals, or groups of individuals, in return for land. But these agreements are out of date, and one cannot expect the railways to be bound for ever by them and the case referred to is perhaps the classic one.
Nevertheless, I am disturbed about the scope of the Bill which will enable the Railways Board to do pretty well what it likes with any kind of contract it has ever entered into, without any reference to the convenience or amenities of the people with whom the agreement has been made. It is true that reference is made to compensation, but compensation will not meet the case in every instance, and I am concerned particularly about the position of authorities like the Sheffield authority which may or may not be a special case.
Over the last hundred years Sheffield has entered into a number of special contracts with the different railway authorities
which have existed over that period. These agreements have made it possible for Sheffield to develop intricate and complicated local services covering such things as special sidings serving sewage disposal works, cleansing department destructors, facilities provided by the highway department, bridges, under-passes, watercourses, walls, fences, level crossings, easements, wayleaves, and so on. One cannot imagine that the Railways Board intends to cancel these agreements, but nevertheless it is possible, under the terms of this Bill, for it to do so if it wants to, with great damage to the Sheffield authority, and naturally that authority is concerned about the situation.
Although I recognise that there is a basic necessity for some cleansing action of this kind, before I agree to give the Bill a Second Reading I should have to


be satisfied that the wording would be amended to ensure that the kind of situation to which I have referred could not arise, and I should therefore like to hear what the Minister has to say about this.
Incidentally, I notice that Clause 34 (3) says:
This section shall not extend to Scotland.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us why not. I think that the Scottish railways are in pretty much the same situation as the others. If there is any question of another Bill being introduced, I hope that the Minister will say so, because some of my hon. Friends would like to be warned well in advance.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the position of Sheffield will be safeguarded, just as the position of the Railways Board will be safeguarded, which is apparently the intention of the Bill.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I can understand the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) being alarmed about Clause 34. It certainly is widely drawn, but I hope they will appreciate the history behind this sort of thing. The obligations to which the railways were liable—and to which in some cases, as far as I know, they are still liable—were themselves very wide and very vague. I remember very clearly a number of years ago when I was still in the legal service of the Great Western Railway my employers being called upon by a landowner in Somerset to rebuild and renew his lodge and lodge gates, which, incidentally, were not close to the railway. The landowner maintained that he had the right to have this done. After a lot of trouble we found a file of correspondence included among which was a letter in longhand written by Brunel himself in a beautiful flowing hand, which read something like this:
My dear Sir George. Thank you for your excellent lunch. I shall be delighted to shoot your partridges next Thursday. Yours very faithfully, Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
P.S. This is to put on record that in consideration of your allowing us to build our railway through your Long Acre field we will maintain your lodge and lodge gates in perpetuity"—
which according to the landowner put an obligation upon the railway to main-

tain the lodge and lodge gates whether or not the railway continued. There were many obligations of that kind. It must be remembered that, in the early days, railways were built in an atmosphere of hysteria and very quickly, within a period of 10 or 15 years, when two parties were opposing each other on grounds of emotion, not on economic grounds. One party was determined to get the railways through anyhow with the determination of a religious revivalist, while the other party was opposing any change with the fanaticism of the Inquisition. Economic considerations did not enter into the matter and many of the obligations which arose within the period were quite ridiculous.
There were instances when the railway line was deliberately put into a tunnel quite unnecessarily in order to avoid disturbing game coveys. I remember one who was an hon. Member of this House for many years and is now in another place telling me that his ancestor had the right to stop the railway operating at a particular point in Devon whenever he chose to have a shoot, because the movement of trains disturbed the birds; therefore, on the day when he was having a shoot no trains passed. I do not know how many obligations of that kind still persist.
There was another, in the South-West which was even more fantastic, where a landowner never accepted any price at all for his land but took a toll on every ton of coal which passed over that section of the line—which for ever afterwards was known as "the golden mile", but not for its beauty. When I left the railway service some 13 years ago, one year after nationalisation, many of those obligations subsisted and I expect some of them still subsist. No doubt some have been got rid of from time to time, but to get rid of them all we should need a wide and comprehensive Clause and I am not sure that the proposed Amendment would do it.
I suppose that the railway authorities know their own business. There may not be many of these fantastic obligations still subsisting, and perhaps the railway authorities will not need to take the opportunity to get rid of them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby that this Clause as drafted could mean anything. Under it the railways


could rescind any obligations they have ever undertaken. It is extraordinarily widely drawn. I hope, therefore, that a new form of words will be included in the Bill, but that they will be wide enough to get rid of such fantastic obligations as still continue which certainly do not belong to this day and age.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: The House has been very much entertained by the reminiscences of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), who has great experience of the administration of railways; but I am more concerned tonight with, perhaps, a more mundane aspect of the matter, because it will be within the recollection of the Parliamentary Secretary and other hon. Gentlemen present that we spent a lot of time last year on the Transport Bill which split up the British Transport Commission into British Railways, the Holding Companies, the Docks Board and various constituent elements. I was one of those hon. Members of that Committee which sat for many weeks, and months I believe, making strenuous objections to the process, but, nevertheless, in the process of democracy the Government had their way and we were ultimately presented with a segmented reconstruction of what was previously the British Transport Commission.
During those debates we were frequently told by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that one of the main objects of the Government in reconstructing the Transport Authority was to give the railways commercial freedom. I believe that that was a quite reasonable objective for which they produced very good reasons; but while they may have been good debating reasons, I am not sure that all of them were very valid reasons. Nevertheless, those reasons were put forward as a very good case for restoring what was called "commercial freedom"—a means of relieving the railways of all kinds of archaic obligations to act as common carriers, and so on, undertakings into which they had entered many years ago as contractual obligations. That is as far as it went, and I believe that the Bill presented to the House tonight is one of the first fruits of that policy in that it seems to me that the newly-constituted British Railways Board is seeking in this Bill to rid itself not only of future obligations but also of many

of the embarrassments which have come down from many years ago when the railways were first instituted.
I remember being taken on a very interesting tour in a remote part of this Palace some years ago. There are times, sometimes even hours, when I am not fully occupied. That occurs occasionally, if not very often, and sometimes I go wandering round this building, always finding interesting places I have not seen before, although I have been here for many years. At one time I went into the Victoria Tower. By permission of the steward or custodian of that part of the building I entered a lift and after ascending several floors I entered a room in which there were thousands of beautifully engrossed Bills which passed through the House during the period when the railways were being constructed in this country. Many of those documents, apart from being aesthetically beautiful in their calligraphy and use of text and good English expression, in the legal sense, were also remarkable documents. Scrutinising them in the time available I noted that many included very onerous obligations which builders of railways were compelled by owners of land to enter into in order to receive wayleaves to proceed with their work.
The brief reference by the hon. Member for Truro to railway lines which entered
tunnels for no reason at all interested me very much. There are quite a number of such railways in Britain. For example, speaking off the cuff and from memory, there was a part of the old Midland Railway, one of the most expensive railway lines in this country. There were certain railways before it, but, ultimately, it became the old Midland Railway whose line proceeded through the Peak of Derbyshire. That was necessary because of the natural character of the terrain; but when it entered into the Derwent Valley it had to pass over land belonging to the Dukes of Rutland and Devonshire. As one comes down that line today one comes through a long tunnel near Haddon Hall. There was no need at all for that tunnel except to protect the amenities of the estate.
These are the kind of ancient survivals which anybody would say ought to be swept away, but I take a rather different view of the general consensus of the Bill in the sense that I believe that the right


hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has performed a service to this House in forcing this short debate to take place. Far too many things go through this House on the nod. We have just agreed to the expenditure of £1,600 million on the nod in our last debate, after having talked about quite another matter—but that is something that I should be out of order in developing.
My right hon. Friend has performed a public service, because although I am no medievalist or Conservative—if I were I would not be on this side of the House —I have a proper respect for contractual obligations. I have always accepted it as a rule that if I entered into a contract with anybody, even if I were forced to do so by adverse circumstances and did not like the contract at all, I would keep it until I was able to have it amended honourably, by agreement with the other party concerned.
Reference has been made to Clause 34, and although I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page)—who is very diligent in these matters—as reading it to mean that it gives the railways compulsory powers to purchase land without the proper process of inquiry, I agree that it relieves the railway authorities of contractual obligations entered into by their predecessors according to the circumstances of the day, and I do not think that this should be done in an arbitrary manner. In this House and elsewhere I have always objected to unilateral disarmament, and I object to the unilateral disarmament proposed in the Bill. If there is to be a variation of contracts it is reasonable for hon. Members to make sure that those contracts are varied only after a consideration of all the elements involved—the obligations, duties and rights conferred by the operation of those contracts.
I speak with great trepidation in the presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a trained lawyer, but I think that he would be the first to agree—and any layman knows—that in any contract there must be a consideration, otherwise the contract is not valid. If these contracts, entered into in order that the railways should come into existence, are to be swept away in this manner, a good deal of injustice may be done to all kinds of people, including local authorities.
I apologise for continuing to speak, but I now want to spend a few moments informing the House of a parallel set of circumstances that has often been brought to my notice in my constituency in Lancashire. Long before any nationalisation legislation was put on to the Statute Book, after the private enterprise mine owners had carried out their operations and littered the countryside with the dross and rubbish which those operations inevitably involved, in too many 9ases they disappeared, leaving the local authorities with all the obligations to maintain bridges and footpaths and all kinds of rights of access to land which had been impeded by the mining industry. The effects of those operations are still with us, on quite a large scale. In many cases it is impossible to find who is really responsible for maintaining certain previously existing rights of way.
I make no apology for referring to other Clauses besides Clause 34. Clause 24, which concerns the extinction of private rights of way, says:
All private rights of way over any land that may be acquired compulsorily under this Act shall, as from the acquisition of the land, whether compulsorily or by agreement, be extinguished".
As an old member of the Footpaths Preservation Society—in which I took a great interest at one time—I strongly object to a body being given the power to extinguish rights of way without proper inquiry and a proper examination of all the factors involved, whether that body be a nationalised industry or a private undertaking.
The hon. Member for Crosby made some play about the extraordinary power granted to the Board under Clause 34. That is retrospective, and not in the future. Clause 27, however, says:
The powers of the Board for the compulsory purchase of the lands and easements which they are authorised to acquire by this part of this Act shall cease on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-six".
In other words, at the end of the day the Board will be in a weaker position than it is now when it wants to acquire land. That is the other side of the coin. That factor also requires consideration.
In Clause 29 all the awkward things that the Board is empowered to do are excused the Crown. The Clause provides:
Nothing in this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption


of the Crown and in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, nothing in this Act authorises the Board to take, use or in any manner interfere with any land, hereditaments, subjects or rights of whatsoever description belonging to Her Majesty in right of her Crown …
That is Crown privilege with a vengeance.

Mr. Hay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Price: If I am wrong the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to put me on the rails again. I hesitate to go on further, but I must point out that the Bill is teeming with controversial items. It may be a short Bill, and it may be desirable to give the Board many of these powers. I am not one to deny a nationalised industry the reasonable powers which it requires to conduct its business. But the Bill is much too far-reaching. It is evidence of the fact that the Government want to make it easier for British Railways to divest themselves of some of their properly and put it on to the property market—as was indicated in the debates on the Transport Bill last year.
Therefore, I am sceptical. I do not wish to be unkind and say that I am critical, but I am extremely sceptical about a comprehensive Bill of this kind which gives far-reaching powers to a public authority to annul contracts arbitrarily and without proper inquiry. The matter should receive the closest scrutiny by an examining committee. At the moment, I am persuaded by the speeches that have been made that I ought to support the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich.

7.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I hope that hon. Members will allow me to intervene now. It will not prevent other hon. Members speaking later, on other matters, and I think it will be helpful, in order to avoid too many false points being taken, if I now address a few remarks to the House on Clause 34. I have listened to one or two speeches, and I believe that there is a risk of false points being taken.
The representations made to the Ministry, to the Railways Board and, tonight, to the House, in relation to Clause 34, are nearly all on the same

point. Most of them are based on a misunderstanding of the intention of the Clause. Its object is to render unenforceable against the Board contractual obligations to provide railway services and facilities which were entered into by the Board's predecessors —the former railway companies—as the consideration, or part of the consideration, for the sale of land for the construction of the railways.
With all respect to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dug-dale), we must look very closely at the text of the Clause before we can be sure that it goes as wide as he says. The typical obligation towards which the Clause is directed—and there are many variations of it—is a covenant, either contained in or contemporaneous with a conveyance of land to a railway company requiring that company to provide and to maintain a station for the use of the vendor of the land—and it may be of interest to the House to know that I have been informed by the Railways Board that in the Western Region alone there are over 100 cases of this kind—or, alternatively, to stop some or even all the trains which pass through that station.
May I give briefly one or two contemporary examples? I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) had to say about the history of this matter, in view of his great deal of experience and love for railway history which he exhibits when he addresses the House on these matters. But I wish to give a few examples——

Mr. G. Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Clause, as it is proposed to amend it, would cover other obligations than railway services which some of us say should not survive?

Mr. Hay: I will come to that in due course. I wish to give two or three examples of the sort of mischief at which the Clause is aimed.
Mention has been made of the case of the Duke of Beaufort and Badminton Station. The House will forgive me if I do not go into this case at any length because it is the subject of a petition. The Duke of Beaufort and others have petitioned in connection with this Bill, and I think that the House would not


wish me to say anything which might bring down the balance on one side or the other. But I can state the facts as they exist. As long ago as 7th December, 1899, the Great Western Railway covenanted with the predecessor in title to the present Duke, first, to provide and maintain a station, now know as Badminton, and, secondly, to stop four passenger trains in each direction on every weekday. Since 1961 the local trains between Bristol and Swindon have been taken off. But five main line passenger trains continue to call at Badminton on weekdays. That is one example which has been mentioned a good deal in the Press. I have another two examples which are interesting.
There is the case of the station called Hinton Admiral. An agreement was made in 1882 between the London and South-Western Railway Co. and Sir George Meyrick, Bt., whereby one up and one down train each day may be required to call and to set down or pick up Sir George Meyrick or members of his household. This facility has been used from time to time even in modern times and it always involves a delay to the Bournemouth Express of about five minutes. I am told that about three years ago an arrangement under this agreement had to be made for a train known as the "Royal Wessex" to stop on its downward journey on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays to enable a passenger to alight, a passenger who at the time was attending a course of lectures in London.
There is the case of the station at Stoke Edith on the line between Hereford and Worcester. Under a deed of 5th June, 1853, with a Lady Foley, all passenger trains, except special trains or express trains are to stop at the station, and express trains are to be stopped on notice being given by Lady Foley, her appointees, heirs and assigns or other persons authorised by "her, him or them"—to quote the covenant. This provision is occasionally exercised. These are some of the examples of the sort of thing at which the Clause is aimed.

Mr. Dugdale: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman during his most interesting recital. But he will be aware that that is not the point I was pressing

or which was being pressed by other hon. Members. The point in which we are interested is quite different. We are not concerned with these private rights at private stations. We are concerned much more with the question of the rights of local authorities.

Mr. Hay: That I fully understand and the rest of my speech will be directed to that point. All I was saying was that there has been a misunderstanding about the width of this Clause and the matters with which it is concerned. I hope to demonstrate for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that, in fact, they are under a misapprehension about the purpose of the Clause and the things with which it deals.
Covenants of the kind I have mentioned were not infrequently entered into with landowners when the railways were being constructed. But I hope that I carry the House with me when I say that today we must regard them as something of an anachronism. I would go further and say that I regard them as potential obstacles to the carrying out of the policy of the railways in modern times. If we are to make any impression on the vast deficits of the railways this policy may involve the closing down of uneconomic lines or stations and the withdrawal of unremunerative services. Where a covenant of this kind is enforced, the Board is prevented from closing a line or station concerned unless it can negotiate a release from its obligations from the person entitled to enforce them or by seeking powers from Parliament for a statutory release.
There are precedents for this Clause. In its two Acts of 1959 and 1961 the British Transport Commission did precisely that. It obtained a statutory release from onerous covenants. But whatever procedure has to be adopted, delay and uncertainty inevitably is involved. Were the Board to close a line or a station in ignorance of such a covenant or in the belief—it might be a mistaken belief—that the covenant was now ended or otherwise unenforceable, it is feared that the Board would be potentially liable to legal proceedings to restrain it from so acting or oblige it to restore a service which it had withdrawn. Even if, in the event, the court declined to grant the specific purpose under the covenant and


awarded damages in lieu, inevitably there would still be delay and expense from the existence of covenants of this kind. in the view of the Board it is in any case wrong in principle—bearing in mind the background of Government policy for the railways and the duties imposed on the Board by the Transport Act of 1962 —that private individuals should still retain legal rights, which go far beyond the safeguards of the Act, over railway services or facilities. The Clause, therefore, proposes that contractual obligations to provide railway services and facilities —I stress those words—should not be specifically enforceable in the event of their non-observance by the Board. But, as hon. Members have already said, provision is made for possible compensation to those who would have been entitled to enforce the obligation in the covenant.
May I remind the House, as did the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), that this Clause is in some ways a logical extension of Section 43 of the Transport Act, 1952. The hon. Gentleman referred to the debate we had on that legislation. That Section relieves the Board from all legal obligations to provide a railway service and facilities for the public as a whole, so far as it is feasible to do so under Public Bill procedure. This Clause relieves the railways of such obligations in respect of individuals. That is something which the transport legislation of last Session could not do—it being a public Measure—without a very serious risk of it being turned into a hybrid.

Mr. J. T. Price: If these new powers are sought in this Private Bill, would they divest railway authorities of any obligation to maintain bridges and rights of way on properties which the railways had obtained and leave the matter to the local authorities? It is the local authorities with whom I am concerned and not private individuals.

Mr. Hay: I hope that the House will have patience for a little longer because I am trying to develop the argument and to make clear, without I hope a peradventure, that the position of local authorities and easements and property rights of all kinds are not affected in this Bill at all.

Mr. Archie Manuel: It does not say so.

Mr. Hay: I am saying so. The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have to put on record on behalf of the Board—since I am the spokesman of the Board in this House for this purpose—exactly what is the true position. This Clause has caused a great deal of anxiety and I hope the House will bear with me while I try to explain exactly what the position is.

Mr. Manuel: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that if legal proceedings arose from this it would not be a matter of what he says that would count but what is in the actual Clause? It is to avoid that type of thing arising in the case of a disused branch line with bridges over it or wayleaves carrying public services. If that is not meant by this provision, why not say so and avoid the fears of town clerks and chairmen of councils up and down the country?

Mr. Hay: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue with my speech, I am sure that by the time I sit down illumination will dawn on him and on all interested in this matter. The Clause refers to the same sort of things as are in Section 43 of the Transport Act. If one looks, for example, at Section 43 (5, c) one finds that the very words used in the Clause in this Bill are there. The words in that subsection are:
any other railway services or facilities (including the provision of stations, sidings or carriages and of any services, facilities or amenities in connection therewith)".
There is the precedent on which the draftsmen of British Railways have drawn. Those words have precisely the same meaning as in Section 43 and from their context in that Section they clearly relate to services or facilities in connection with the carriage of passengers or of goods.
I should have thought in any case that this was the actual meaning, but, as the right hon. Member for West Bromwich said, the Association of Municipal Corporations and various local authorities who have been writing, to hon. Members about the Clause have all expressed the fear that it might relieve the Board from obligations to maintain accommodation works, bridges and other works of that kind.
In the Board's opinion these would not be obligations to provide railway services or facilities, but the Clause is


evidently capable of some misconstruction. As a consequence, the Board has told the Association that it proposes to include in the filled-up Bill to he laid before the Committee to which the Bill is committed an Amendment to insert after the word "facilities" in line 5 on page 24 the words:
for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway".
The opening words of that subsection would then read:
'contractual obligation' means any obligation of the Board under any deed, conveyance, covenant, agreement or other similar instrument to provide or maintain any railway services or facilities for the carriage of passengers or goods by railway"—
and, in brackets—
(including the provision of stations. sidings or carriages and of any services, facilities or amenities in connection therewith)".
There is no doubt in my mind that this is what the Board wants to do. It wants to strike at the type of thing of which I have given three examples and the obligations I have mentioned to maintain stations, being obligations, most of them, as a consequence of a deal done many years ago for the purchase of land. It is not concerned with, and does not intend to disturb, the rights that local authorities, or indeed private individuals, may have for support of bridges, embankments, culverts and things of that sort.

Mr. Dugdale: I entirely appreciate that, but what I want made clear is that the local authorities do not think that the words will have that effect. The Railways Board thinks that they will. Can there be consultation between them so that an agreed set of words may be produced to satisfy both of them?

Mr. Hay: Yes. We are concerned here only with the Second Reading of the Bill and whether it should be referred to a Committee. When it gets to Committee, obviously consultation will take place between the promoters and those who petition and others concerned. I am told that there is no reason at all why the Amendment offered by the Railways Board should not be considered with the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association and anyone else who is interested.

Mr. G. Wilson: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but I am on

a different point. I am saying that certain private rights, unconnected with the carriage of passengers and goods by rail, are absurd and ought to be abolished. I do not know how we can meet both objects, not abolish the rights of municipalities yet at the same time abolish the absurd contractual obligations which go back for many years. Before the Bill reaches Committee, could my hon. Friend look at that, if there is a substantial number? If there is not a substantial number, it does not matter.

Mr. Hay: I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of the Railways Board. I imagine the reaction will be in the time honoured phrase:
I do not ask to see
The distant scene; one step enough for me.
I must emphasise for the benefit of anyone who is anxious about this point that the Bill does not of itself enable any passenger services to be withdrawn because, quite apart from any covenant which may exist, the Board is precluded from doing so without complying with the Transport Users Consultative Committee procedure provided for under Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1962, and it must also obtain the consent of the Minister under subsection (8) of that Section. Even if it followed that procedure and obtained the consent to withdrawal, it would still be unable to proceed until the covenant had been released or discharged by Act of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) raised the question of railway sidings which he feared might be involved in this Clause. I must tell the House that relatively few sidings agreements can have been entered into as the consideration or part of the consideration for the conveyance of land for the construction of railways. The great majority of sidings agreements will have been entered into as commercial transactions quite unconnected with questions of land ownership.

Mr. Graham Page: I am really amazed at what my hon. Friend says because there must be hundreds of places within his knowledge up and down the country where factory developers have surrendered land to the railway when building factories in order to have sidings


on that land. This is just the kind of case which would not be covered by the words of the Amendment but which is taken away by Clause 34.

Mr. Hay: I am told by the Railways Board that there are probably none. There may be some; the Board is not certain. In any case the Board knows that there are a great many commercial agreements on private sidings. If there are any of the sidings to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has referred they would be caught by this Clause. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe mentioned the fears of Sheffield Corporation about railway sidings serving markets, sewage disposal works, cleansing departments destructors and the highways depot of Sheffield. I can assure him that the Clause will not apply to obligations of the Board in relation to such sidings unless those sidings happen to have been created under the very special circumstances referred to in the Clause. On the face of it, I do not think it very likely, but if there should be any unusual cases of that kind, the Board I understand would be very willing to consider them and to negotiate with those who might be affected.
There is another point with which I should deal here. That is the reference made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby to this being a species of compulsory purchase. I have as much dislike of compulsory purchase as he has, but I suggest to him that there is at least some doubt whether rights to services which have been of an almost personal character, as these are, could properly be said to be property and therefore susceptible of compulsory purchase procedure. I do not think that the courts would find that facilities which a person may enjoy are a species of property to which compulsory purchase applies.

Mr. Graham Page: Easements over land.

Mr. Hay: They are not exactly easements over land. I do not propose to give the House the advantage of hearing two solicitors arguing in public. Even if they were easements over land, it is for the Committee to which the Bill is committed to decide such issues. We are concerned tonight with Second Reading. Our job is to say whether the Bill as a whole aid as it now stands should be committed to a Committee. I suggest

that the numerous things in the Bill which will benefit the railways, quite apart from Clause 34, require in the public interest that the Bill should be so committed, and it is that that I would urge the House to do.

Major Sir Frank Markham: Will my hon. Friend deal with places like Trafford Park and other trading estates up and down the country which have a vast railway networking of sidings but no passenger traffic at all? Under the Clause the Railways Board could close down all those sidings and sell what is very good commercial land at very high prices.

Mr. Hay: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me. It all depends on the two limbs of the Clause being covered. The first is that the provision of the siding could clearly be said to be a railway service or facility for the carriage of passengers or goods. It may be that the sidings at Trafford Park would comply with that test. The second test is, in the closing words of subsection 1(a), that that interest was created as a direct result of the purchase of land for the railway in the first place. Unless the siding was placed there as part of the deal when the land was originally bought for the railway, it would not come within the ambit of the Clause. It would be an entirely separate transaction. One has to look at both those things.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I make just a short intervention to say that I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was right to intervene when he did. Understandably, because of the way the Clause was worded it led a number of us to believe that, in the words of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), there was a question here that individual rights could be swept away by the powers taken under the Clause. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has removed that doubt. He has made it very clear that the wording is concerned only with the relief from contractual obligations to provide railway services where in fact land was sold in the first place. It can, therefore, be said that this is concerned in the main with the removal of the sort of anomalies the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned. No hon. Member would disagree with him that these ought to be removed.
We must recognise the logical consequence. In a few months time we shall get from the Minister of Transport a statement following plans that he will have put before him by Dr. Beeching. It is not an over-statement to say that we shall hear from the Minister of Transport that certain lines and services will have to be curtailed. We can be sure of that. It would be a little odd if the House were to discuss those proposals, which will almost certainly come before us, when at the same time there were certain obligations upon the railways to provide certain services because of agreements made many years ago on the sale of land. If that is what the Clause is about, none of us can quarrel with it.
We owe a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). He was right to oppose the Second Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary was right to spell out in detail as he saw it from the Front Bench exactly what the Clause means. I am sure that his speech will be quoted many times in future by those interested in this matter. The other
thing which is all-important is the assurance that there is a desire on the part of the Railways Board to have discussions with all those parties who are interested. With respect to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, we cannot ask for more than that. I very much hope that the Bill receives a Second Reading.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: The Town Clerk and Council of the Borough of Beckenham have also been worried about Clause 34. In a letter to me the Town Clerk says this:
As drawn, it seems that the Clause would give the British Railways Board the right to be relieved of its obligations under agreements with local authorities, for example, for the maintenance of accommodation bridges.
The words of the Parliamentary Secretary this evening will be very welcome.
I look at any attempt on the part of British Railways to be relieved of its contractual obligations with a particularly jaundiced eye at this moment because of the sweeping cuts that have just been announced in the late night service for the people of my constituency. There may be no written contractual agreement between my constituents and British Railways, but for many years—indeed, for

many decades—there has been a tradition of ample and generous late night services for sections of metropolitan Kent. This has encouraged many people who have to work late at night, particularly those employed in the newspaper industry, to move to my constituency and neighbouring constituencies and buy or rent properties there.
The cost of this service is considerable. It has been estimated by British Railways at about £19,000 a year. The number of people who use the service is not particularly large, although the number of people who use it on any one evening is no necessary reflection of the number of people who may use it over a period of time because of the practice in the printing trade and newspaper offices to rotate the members of their staff who have to stay very late. I know from letters I have already received since this cut was announced a few days ago that this will be a very grave hardship to a number of people.

Mr. E. G. Willis: That is nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Goodhart: I am anxious that British Railways, if it is adopting this high-handed attitude, should not be given any relaxation of its contractual obligations which are written down. Although we may be perfectly willing to see the rights of the Duke of Beaufort swept aside, I am not anxious to see the comfort and convenience of the printers and sub-editors living in the constituency of Beckenham also swept aside because of this hard-hearted attitude on the part of British Railways. If the matter is pressed to a Division tonight, I shall not be able to vote for the Bill.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Percy Collick: I am sure that the House would have been wrong to have given the Bill a Second Reading but for the assurances which we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary. Even with those assurances, I have a few doubts which I think it would be desirable to put on record. A political philosopher would find this debate interesting, because a Conservative Administration is endorsing proposals which give authority for the abrogation of contracts properly entered into. Although I could argue a case quite well for doing


just that, I found it extremely interesting that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), who I am sorry is not in his place now, took an attitude tonight critical of these old aristocratic agreements entered into by private landowners and private railway companies for the protection of private property rights. Had the hon. Member for Truro been in his place at that time he would have been the first person to have defended the sacred rights of private property for all these things.
There are not many of my hon. Friends who would say that these are completely justified. However, I have some sympathy with those who find themselves in the position of having entered a contract and then being told by the Government, "We are going to give statutory authority for the ending of this contract without the right of appeal to anyone". This is a new brand of Tory philosophy, if I may call it such. It is merely a question of a Tory spokesman coming to the House to endorse a proposal of the Transport Commission to abrogate the sacred rights of private property.
The Parliamentary Secretary, with his usual kind of courteous demeanour—in striking contrast to that of the Minister—told us that one of these contracts dates back to 1891. That is really not all that long ago; about seventy years. How many more times will the Conservative Administration tell us that they are willing to abrogate agreements because they are seventy years old? There are plenty of instances of agreements more than 700 years old which they have defended.

Mr. Manuel: Even 7,000 years old.

Mr. Collick: Yes, and I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I could give him another side to the Badminton story. I can assure him that several practical railway and engine men could give instances where trains have had to stop at a particular station for a particular reason, that reason often having been tied up with certain interests. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned some of these on the old Great Western line. In those days there were over 100 instances of this sort of thing happening.
However, the Government support the Transport Commission's proposal to abrogate properly entered contractual obligations and agreements and that is the important principle to bear in mind. I know from my experience in the House, which is not all that short, that Clause 34 is as sweeping as anything could be, with the proviso about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke regarding an Amendment being drafted to meet the position. I am a little doubtful whether that can be done. I do not doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary has satisfied his own mind that it can, but I can only speak from experience.
In this connection, I must cite the example of the County Borough of Birkenhead.
The town clerk has-written to me to
explain the position. Birkenhead, just a month or so ago, negotiated an agreement with the Transport Commission. I do not wish to relate all the details, for they concerned the maintenance of roads, and so on. As the agreement between the Birkenhead Borough Council and the Transport Commission stands, the Commission is committed to a maintenance arrangement agreeable both to the Commission and the Birkenhead Corporation. Nevertheless, the town clerk has written to me saying in effect, "The Transport Commission are proposing, if this Private Bill goes through as drafted, to be in a position to abrogate this agreement; and they intend so to do."

Mr. Hay: The essential point to understand is what I said earlier; that it would be perfectly open to the Railways Board to abrogate that agreement under the Clause if the second test was also applicable, namely, that the obligation was so entered into if the land or an interest in the land was granted or conveyed by the instrument creating the obligation. If, as part of the deal between Birkenhead Corporation and the Board, this particular obligation was entered into, the Clause might possibly bite on the second leg, to mix metaphors On the first one, however, it would not bite because the support of the provision of roads would not be an obligation to provide or maintain any railway services or facilities.

Mr. Collick: It was because of my fear that it would bite on that second


leg that I raised this matter. That is why I am not at all sure that we should allow the Bill to proceed without it being carried to a Division. If the Parliamentary Secretary were able to say, "It is all right. You may have no fears about this prospect in Birkenhead" that would be a different matter.

Mr. Hay: I will say it.

Mr. Collick: All right then. I will think again. That point gave me the most concern, although there is another one of considerable importance. One is used to the bargaining that goes on in this matter and anyone who has sat on Committees concerned with this topic knows that. I would have thought, so simple am I, that it would have been perfectly easy for the legal authorities to have told Birkenhead Borough Council, "You have a complete misapprehension about this. We do not intend doing anything of the kind. You are completely misinformed." Had that been said Birkenhead Council would not have written to me in the terms I have quoted.

Mr. Hay: Did Birkenhead Corporation raise these doubts with the Railways Board?

Mr. Collick: Yes. At least, I have no reason to doubt that it did not, but, like the Parliamentary Secretary—both of us having sat on that bench—we are sometimes adequately briefed and on other occasions we are not. I would not like to say categorically that the Corporation did, but since it raised the matter with me, I feel certain that it would have raised it with the Board first.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is going to tell me, as he has already indicated from the Box, that this is not going to apply to Birkenhead, I will do an unusual thing. I will readily accept what he says and hold him to his word, not that I have ever found that undesirable. I will tell Birkenhead Council that all its fears are thoroughly unfounded, that the Board has no such intention, that it is most unfortunate that the misunderstanding ever arose, and that the Board is exceedingly sorry about it and will see that when the Bill goes into Committee appropriate Amendments are made.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that we must all agree that my right hon.

Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has rendered a service to the House by raising this matter and thus enabling us to have such an interesting and informative discussion. We are also greatly indebted to the Parliamentary Secretary. I sometimes wonder what the Ministry of Transport would be like if he were not there and what would happen if his undoubted merits were ever to lead to his promotion. I cannot imagine how we should ever have such guidance and lucidity as we have from the hon. Gentleman.
If we give the Bill a Second Reading tonight we do not part with it. It is quite evident that there are some quite complicated legal points to be dealt with, and I have no doubt that the Association of Municipal Corporations, on whose behalf my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich moved to reject the Bill, will be watching it. The Association certainly has a reservoir of legal talent which is quite formidable and perfectly capable of dealing even with such complicated matters as arise here. If when the Bill emerges from Committee the Association is not satisfied, it can communicate with my right hon. Friend and we can have a discussion on Third Reading in which I have no doubt we shall have plenty of legal advice on both sides. The House will then have to make up its mind whether to allow the Bill to pass through on Third Reading.
I should have thought that that is sufficient safeguard for us to give the Bill a Second Reading tonight and that it should be clearly on the understanding that negotiations will be conducted by
the Railways Board with the persons who are interested. And it should be clearly understood by then that the House will examine what emerges from the Committee with the utmost care to make quite sure that all the fears expressed tonight have been dealt with, so that those who have expressed the fears can vote for the Third Reading with a clear conscience.
There is no doubt that there are a good many of these private agreements in the country. I know the great annoyance that was caused to many of my fellow townsmen in the old days when the owner of Albury Park at Mickleham had the right to cause any train passing through Box Hill Station to be stopped there so that he could come down from it. I remember the way people used to risk getting


into some of these trains at Victoria when they saw him on the platform and imagined that this would cause the train to be stopped at Box Hill whereas on occasion he went on to Dorking with the rest of them.
Undoubtedly difficulties of this kind arise throughout the country, and it would be a good thing if we could get through the Bill an understanding about what is to be done about them. I hope that the Committee which examines the Bill will consider the points raised by my hon. and right hon. Friends and see that they are adequately and clearly dealt within the Bill by the time it emerges from the Committee.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I, too, am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has by his courage in objecting to the Bill, although he stood the chance of being misunderstood in sonic quarters, enabled us to have this debate. I have been rather diffident about taking part, because by subsection (3), we are told that Clause 34 "shall not extend to Scotland". However, in addition to being a Member for a Scottish constituency and being a very proud Scot, I am a railwayman. The repercussions which Clause 34 could have are cause for concern to anyone who has ever had any attachment to or been employed by British Railways. They should be examined very carefully.
Curiously enough, in spite of what has been said on both sides, I have mixed feelings about the various interpretations of Clause 34. I am rather worried that the Clause does not extend to Scotland. In Scotland still, medieval privilege continues to affect the operation of the railways. It ought to be scrubbed out. There are antediluvian practices and agreements which are most expensive in their effect and very irritating to modern railwaymen. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why the Clause does not apply to Scotland. It is all one railway system.

Mr. Hay: I confess that when the point was first raised it occurred to me that the problem had not arisen in Scotland, perhaps, because in that country in years gone by landowners preferred to have the cash rather than the privilege. However, I have been advised since the debate

began that this is an entirely erroneous view.
The reason why the Clause does not extend to Scotland is simply that the Railways Board came into existence and was vested with its assets only on 1st January last, and the time between then and now has not been sufficient for the various legal and technical formalities under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, to be complied with. This is why the Clause does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Manuel: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in thinking that private landowning interests in Scotland took the cash and did not bother about privileges. In fact, they took both, and very large sums were involved. One can read about it in the history of some of our railways. A line would cross a great stretch of sparsely populated country, part of one of the Highland estates, and there would be a private platform adjacent to the big house. The line itself would be diverted to come as near as possible, not coming so near as to cause discomfort from belching smoke or escaping steam. This is a source of irritation in the working of trains on various lines, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that privilege was exacted to a very great extent. Perhaps, when the hon. Gentleman widens the scope of his investigation to include Scotland, he will find worse examples than anything in England, because there was never anyone so rapacious as a Highland laird or a south of Scotland one either.
I am still not quite certain in my mind what the position is, despite the lucid exposition of the Parliamentary Secretary so far as it went. I have in mind now the other side of the coin, and this does affect Scotland. We are concerned about repercussions on local authority interests in cases where, instead of a private interest being at stake, it is the common interest. Certain rights of way will be interfered with, but compensation under Clause I1 may not meet the point if it means barring access to some place merely to give greater convenience to the Railways Board.
Branch lines are being closed because they are not profitable, and there are no trains running. Possibly the rails have been lifted but the ground is still in the


ownership of the Railways Board. If it is still in ownership, will the further upkeep on-cost of connecting bridges in a township pass from the Railways Board despite any old contractual arrangement which there may have been? This is very important in every township which was intersected by the railway at one time. I know that the matter is different if ownership passes from the Railways Board, but if it is still in ownership then it cannot avoid the responsibility for it. Where a railway intersects an inhabited place it does not matter, but usually a wayleave which is used for a bridge is used for the conveyance of other services, such as water, gas and electricity.

Mr. G. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Manuel: I am always willing to give way to a railway lawyer if it will help us.

Mr. Wilson: Is not the effect of the hon. Gentleman's argument that the Scottish burghs are asking British taxpayers, including the English, should pay for the maintenance of a bridge in Scotland from which they are getting no benefit? Is not that rather rapacious?

Mr. Manuel: Those of us who own certain things often have to pay because of certain repercussions arising from that ownership. If the hon. Gentleman disowns that theory, he is marching rather near to this side of the House. Perhaps he thinks that the public interest should be impeded by something which is privately owned. There are many protections in law, especially about bridges across railways—hundreds of them—even with regard to getting permission to paint them, and so on.
Possibly more branch lines or more sections of main railway line will be kept in being in Scotland because of social reasons, and I hope that the contractual arrangements which have been entered into by local authorities will still apply. I think that they will in the case to which I have referred. I am concerned with the other case where railways are not conveying passengers or goods but are still in the ownership of the Railways Board.
Clause 34 says:
no action or other proceeding shall be instituted or continued against the Board for

the purpose of enforcing any contractual obligation or awarded obligation".
It is completely wrong, particularly when local authority interests are involved, to write into a Bill a provision to the effect that there can be no appeal against whatever action might be taken in this regard and that no proceedings can be instituted by
the local authority against it. All we are given, on the other hand, is that the compensation is to be determined by the tribunal in case of dispute. I am against the way that this is worded. There should be opportunity for appeal to and examination by an independent body, not on the question of compensation, but on the rights of the contract, if so desired.
There are fears that, not the local authorities, but the landowning interests, may get too much compensation. Instead of compensation being determined by the tribunal in case of dispute, I would prefer all compensation to be determined by the tribunal. This might be a better way to look at the whole question and to take it off the shoulders of the Railways Board and to allow disputed questions, when compensation is to be paid, to be decided by an independent tribunal.
I hope that what I have said has been of interest and that these things which should come to Scotland will come fairly soon, so that we can get away from the excesses of private ownership which have existed for so many years in Scotland as well as in England.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: The Bill contains Clause 4——

Mr. Hay: Clause 4?

Mr. Jeger: —yes, a notorious title—dealing with works which are to be carried out. Four items of work will be undertaken if authority is given under the Clause. I am sure that my constituency will be delighted to learn that half of the work is to be done in my constituency, Work No. 1 being the railway at Ferrybridge and Work No. 2 being the railway at Hensall.
What my constituency would be interested to learn, however, is the order of priority by which the Railways Board decides which work is to be undertaken first


and which will be undertaken last. We accept that these two works will be done. As no objection has been lodged with me by the local authorities or by any individuals in my constituency, I am prepared to accept that they are necessary works and I shall not object to them.
I should, however, like to know why the case of Goole Station and the trains which overhang the level crossing, which impedes traffic along the main road in the town of Goole, is not given first priority and why these two works as set out in Clause 4 take priority over the lengthening of the platforms at Goole Station or the removal of the crossing in such a way that traffic is allowed to flow along the main road in Goole. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is in a position to answer this point tonight. If not, perhaps he will note my question and reply later.
Clause 10 refers to certain level crossings. It may be within the hon. Gentleman's recollection that I kept him up late the other night discussing safety precautions at level crossings in my constituency at which a number of people have unfortunately lost their lives in recent years. I should like to know about the extinguishing of the rights of way over the level crossings referred to in the Bill. Are any safety precautions to be installed for the benefit of the pedestrians or persons on horseback or leading horses who will be using these pedestrian crossings after the Bill becomes an Act?
I see that normal rights of way for all other persons or animals will be extinguished. It seems to me that there should be some safety precautions in the light of the revelations which I made about the safety precautions that are missing from many of the 19,000 level crossings in Britain, and that in all cases where work is undertaken, improvements are made, rights are extinguished or any action whatever is taken in connection with a level crossing, it should be laid down that there must be adequate safety precautions for those who are allowed to continue to use them. That is an elementary step which should be taken and it is one which should be written into the Bill before it finally becomes law. If the Parliamentary Secretary will give undertakings in this matter, I and those of my constitu-

ents who are keenly interested will feel reassured.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I wish to take up a point rather similar to that made by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) regarding level crossings. I did not give much prior study to the Bill until this evening, but I see that there is mention in Clause 9 of a crossing in King's Lynn which I know very well. I am surprised to see that this crossing is to be completely closed.
I know that a great number of people take walks along this road, known as Salters Road. What kind of safeguards are there to be for these people to be able to continue to walk along it? Children also use the crossing and in summertime there is a large amount of rail holiday traffic. It seems a pity that the authorities should be able to close it without protest, and I should be grateful for information about the position.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Hay: By leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to some of the points raised. I will not traverse a lot of ground covered by speeches about Clause 34, because many of them are more relevant to discussion in Committee. I hope that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) will agree before long to take a certain course which will avoid the House having to divide on this. I hope to be able to satisfy the requests of the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) and my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard).
So far as Works No. 1 and No. 2 in Clause 4 are concerned, my information is that they are necessary to cater for two new coal-burning power stations which the Central Electricity Generating Board is to build at Ferrybridge and at Egg-borough. Each power station will ultimately consume about 5 millions tons of coal a year and the resulting works necessary to serve them include the construction of a short loop connecting the Wakefield and Goole line to the Swinton and Knottingley line south of Ferrybridge Station.
Work No. 2 begins by a junction with the Hull and Barnsley Railway northeast of the bridge spanning that railway


over Broach Road and finishes by a junction with the Wakefield, Pontefract and Goole Railway.
I understand that the works do not interfere with the highways but that the Railways Board requires the powers so that it can acquire land for the work. It expects that the Ferrybridge work will begin in 1965 and will be operating by 1967. I also understand that these works will be carried out very quickly. I will gladly give the hon. Member for Goole further information if I can get it.
My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn asked about the closure of a level crossing. He will remember that in an Adjournment debate the other night I said that there were two types of private crossings—an occupation crossing, which is a level crossing over the road to which the public may or may not have access, and an accommodation crossing, which is a connection between two pieces of land under the same ownership. I am told that the level crossings concerned here are all private accommodation crossings for the use of owners and occupiers of adjoining lands.
The use by the public of the crossings referred to in Clause 9 is either nil or extremely small, and the cost of providing staff is not justified. I have no details of any particularly safety precautions that will be taken if and when the rights given by this Clause are exercised by the Board, but if there is any information I can give my hon. Friend later I shall gladly do so.
I would only add that particulars have been supplied to my right hon. Friend's Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways in all these cases and he is satisfied with what is proposed.

Mr. Jeger: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, may I make another point about level crossings? In these days of more mechanisation on farms, these accommodation crossings may need to be available to vehicles, tractors and so on, even going from one part of the farm land to another. Horses, either led or ridden, might have been adequate in days gone by, but
they have now been replaced by vehicles. Has any account been taken of that in the proposal to extinguish rights of way to all but pedestrians and horses?

Mr. Hay: I can only say that I do not know, but that I should be surprised

if it had not been taken into account. I cannot stand at the Box and say that it has, for I do not know.

Mr. Dugdale: In view of the assurance that further discussions will take place between the A.M.C. and the Railways Board with a view to getting an Amendment suitable to both, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) cannot withdraw the Amendment if there is an objection.
Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

LIVESTOCK, DARTMOOR

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The vagaries of the Parliamentary timetable make it possible to devote a little more time than was expected to what I have described as the scandal of the livestock on Dartmoor.
A little while ago, I inquired of the Minister of Defence how much it had cost the taxpayer to provide helicopter services to the farmers of Dartmoor for animal rescue work. The answer I got was that the cost of these helicopter flights, gallantly performed by the Army and the Royal Air Force, came to about £26,000. This means that the taxpayer has some interest and to some extent is a shareholder in the livestock which still survives on Dartmoor. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
I do not know what farming conditions in Brixton have been like, but they have been rather rough on Dartmoor … everybody has done his best and we should be very grateful …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 919.]
Leaving on one side the rather feeble witticism of the first part of that reply, it will be of interest in the course of our discussion tonight to see to what extent everyone has done his best and to what extent we ought to be grateful.
When I asked the Minister of Agriculture the other day whether he was to carry out some investigation of the losses of livestock on Dartmoor in recent weeks, he rather offhandedly brushed my question on one side and said:
Inevitably, there have been losses of livestock in some hill areas; it is inevitable in a winter like this ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1963; Vol. 672, c. 9.]
That is all the Minister had to say on what many people regard as a most deplorable state of affairs.
Farmers on Dartmoor realised that public opinion was becoming disturbed by what had been happening in the locality. According to a newspaper report, there was a special meeting in Exeter on 17th January of the Dartmoor Commoners' Association, representatives of the Duchy of Cornwall, the Ministry of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union. It appears that there are about 400 hill farmers on Dartmoor, and that the 50,000 livestock estimated to exist on the moor are not regarded as excessive.
It is not the custom for hon. Members to criticise civil servants, but when civil servants make speeches in public they lay themselves open to rejoinder. At this meeting Mr. W. J. Bricknell, the Divisional Area Executive Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, made this statement of the criticisms that appeared in the local Press and elsewhere:
These frivolous and ill-informed charges are very unfair".
We shall see in the course of the discussion to what extent Mr. Bricknell is entitled to take it upon himself as a civil servant in the Ministry of Agriculture to make comments of that kind.
The report of the meeting went on to say that:
Hill farmers would like to take this opportunity of asking the general public not to disturb the livestock and to leave it to the farmers who know their own business.
We shall see in a moment or so to what extent it is safe and humane to leave this kind of thing to these farmers who claim to know their own business best.
When the blizzard emergency struck Dartmoor—as I shall show in a moment, these people had ample warning that the blizzard was approaching—the commoners' association—consisting, of course, of farmers who know their own business

best—immediately got in touch with the Ministry of Agriculture and asked for help. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals also came to the rescue. In addition to the men who manned the helicopters in the rescue operation, a word of thanks is due to the R.S.P.C.A. for its help and co-operation in this difficult situation. It carried on the animal rescue operation for 58 days, helped some 50,000 sheep, cattle and ponies, and at one time 39 R.S.P.C.A. men were employed on the job.
It is always interesting to see to what extent the services of voluntary organi-sations are appreciated by those whom
they are trying to help. In this connection two Dartmoor farmers deserve to be mentioned in dispatches. One of them, Mr. J. W. Reddaway of Kenwyn, Stickle-path, said that
some of the sheep reported to have been found dead in the Taw had been frightened into the river by helicopters dropping hay on the R.S.P.C.A.'s instructions.
That is the thanks which the R.S.P.C.A. got from that individual.
Another moor farmer, Mr. N. C. Grindley, of Lower Halstock Cottage, Okehampton, alleged that, instead of trying to assist animals in need of attention and co-operating with farmers, R.S.P.C.A. inspectors seemed to be on the look out for trouble and annoying the farmers.
I will not harrow the House with details of the terrible events which were noticed by independent observers in the course of the blizzard on Dartmoor. Sheep buried in snowdrifts round the Mary Tavy and Peter Tavy areas were the subject of a newspaper report:
… one ram was being eaten alive at the end of a tunnel the foxes had made through the snow to get at the huddled flock.
At Waspsworthy Farm, Peter Tavy, farmers and other helpers going to dig out sheep saw two foxes scamper away from the drift.… After digging for some time they came to the sheep huddled together. A ram was being eaten alive as it stood in the snow; others had been severely mauled and had to be destroyed.
This is the kind of thing that happened despite the fact that some of these local farmers claimed to know their own business best. They do not seem to appreciate outside assistance, even when it is provided out of the taxpayers' pockets.
I do not base my comments and criticisms, my anger and disgust, on the statements of wild and wholly sentimentalists. Let me quote some evidence in the case. Mr. W. H. C. Blake, of Orchard Cottage, Dartington, said:
It is undeniable that the present deplorably low standard of sheep husbandry as practised on Dartmoor demands drastic reform. This so-called farming is taken much on a gamble with the weather, with the wretched animals' lives as stake money. The plain facts show that Dartmoor sheep farming is little short of an agricultural disgrace.
Mr. H. P. Twyford, the agricultural correspondent of the Western Morning News, in an article he wrote recently said:
Whether there are more sheep than there should be on Dartmoor is not for me to say, more than there does seem to be a call for the control of numbers.
The point could not have been put more mildly than that.
Mrs. Coote, of Ashton, in Devon, who is a farmer on the edge of Dartmoor, has also expressed herself on this subject.

Sir Henry Studholme: Ashton is not on the edge of Dartmoor. It is in the Teign Valley.

Mr. Lipton: I am quoting a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of 16th January last. Mrs. Coote, whose address is given as Ashton, Devon, and who claims to be a farmer on the edge of Dartmoor—the one is not inconsistent with the other; she is entitled to write from one address and be a farmer somewhere else, and I do not see the point of the interjection—also bears testimony to the unnecessary suffering caused to animals on Dartmoor which, she says, is due to the
gross overstocking of the Moor by many people, of varying farming qualifications, tempted and encouraged by hill-farm subsidies, who have not accommodation, shelter, or feed for the animals.
She goes on to say that these so-called farmers are gambling on mild winters, and
if the gamble fails some of the animals perish miserably; some are rescued at vast public effort and expense.
Even if the winter is mild, the overall productivity of the Moor is greatly depressed by constant and heavy over-grazing.
One suggestion which she and others have
put forward is that the open moor

should be cleared of all stock from December to March inclusive. It has also been suggested that there should be an urgent inquiry into the necessity or otherwise of clearing the moor of livestock during the winter months and the findings of such an inquiry should be implemented speedily. I suggest that the Ministry should initiate such an inquiry, and ensure that it is conducted by independent people and not by anyone connected with the Dartmoor Commoners' Association.
I call in support of my case evidence that can be given by Lieut.-Colonel T. Stallard, D.S.O., of Harbourneford. For a long time he has been deeply concerned about the welfare of animals and livestock on Dartmoor. In September, 1962, he issued a circular letter to many organisations which he thought might be interested in the matter, in which he urged that
Drastic action is vital to put things right. We wish to see a halt to the needless suffering of animals, which has resulted from the present use of the Moor
That letter was widely circulated as long ago as last September, long before the blizzard hit Dartmoor. As he rightly pointed out, many people have been agitating for the past 10 years for some positive action to prevent recurrences of unnecessary hardship to the stock on the moor, which, in his opinion, is so often caused by inadequate grazing, by exposure, and sometimes by both.
He suggests that two conditions should be laid down which will immediately improve the wellbeing of the stock on the moor. The first is to rest the moor for a matter of three months each winter by clearing it of all stock, and the second is to allow graziers to graze only that number of
stock which they can support in their own pastures during the winter months. That does not strike me as being a wildly unreasonable proposition. In any event, it is something which should be investigated by the Ministry.
The Parliamentary Secretary will probably refer to the difficulties and complications. They are always greater if there is no real desire to tackle them effectively. He will probably refer to the findings of the Royal Commission on Common Land which reported in July, 1958. Its Report cost about £24,000 to produce, but no visible action has yet been taken by the


Government to implement any if
its recommendations. In spite of its findings, the situation has deteriorated, and no improvements in animal husbandry can be claimed. As Lieut.-Colonel Stallard also points out
The sooner a full measure of redress is effected to end what is a scandalous state of affairs, the better".
Not all farmers on Dartmoor bear the stigma of condoning or allowing this kind of cruelty and suffering to continue. A number of them have sent me telegrams, which have reached me only today, congratulating me on raising this matter and telling me that they dissociate themselves from the malpractices which are responsible for this unnecessary suffering to animals on the moor. Many farmers do not use their grazing rights on the moor, because they know that it is heavily overstocked and even more heavily infested with the redwater-carrying tick.
Many farmers who do not exercise their grazing rights think that it is essential that the regulations concerning the number of beasts permitted to each farm, in accordance with its acreage, should be strictly enforced and backed by heavy penalties. I am informed that regulations exist, but they have obviously been ignored for many years. If the Parliamentary Secretary would like the names of the four farmers who put forward that proposition, I shall be very pleased to supply them. The farmers come from the Ivybridge area.
Mr. Stanley Goodman, who is also an authority on this matter, wrote an article in the Western Morning News on 18th January. It was not a letter to the editor but a feature article in which he said:
We must put an end to a system which will allow every tuppeny ha'penny leaseholder and small tenant adjoining the Moor to run unlimited numbers of stock on the Moor.
I suggest that the Ministry should look into that aspect of the problem. Mr. R. E. St. Leger Gordon also wrote a feature article in the Western Morning News in which he said:
The welfare of the animals is left largely to chance. Each one that survives spells clear profit. Each one that dies entails no loss, The enforcement of the wise old rule restricting every grazier to the number of cattle he can winter would go far to solving some of the present difficult and distressing problems.
I referred earlier to the fact that the blizzard did not come as a surprise to

the farmers of Dartmoor, and in support of that statement I quote the Reverend Courtney Johns, of Black Torrington, who wrote to the Press stating:
Adequate warning was given of the approaching blizzard. The fact that owners of stock on Dartmoor took no action to bring their sheep and ponies to where they could be fed shows sheer neglect and callousness on the part of stock owners.
The trouble is apparently that the only views which reach official circles are those of people who are financially interested in keeping large numbers of hill stock on the moor no matter what the conditions, and in some cases, the views are those of not very knowledgeable N.F.U. officials. I am informed that farmers whose land abuts the moor are invaded every spring by near-starving hill sheep and cattle, and there must be an explanation for that. It is something which ought to be investigated. There is ample evidence that it takes place.
I wish to add a few words on the subject of ponies. The chief inspector of the Horses and Ponies Protection Association, who was working on Dartmoor during the blizzard, has stated that the problem was to discover where the majority of ponies went when they fled from the blizzard, He was speaking during January and said that so far they had not been located either by helicopter or by search parties. The owner of the largest number of ponies in the district said that he had found only two dozen animals out of about 500 that he was seeking.
The question which has been put to me—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer it—is why cannot some pressure be put on the farmers and others who own these animals to comply with the law which I understand requires that the ponies should be brought in, or at any rate fed, during the severest part of the winter? A correspondent writing from Middlemoor in Tavistock says:
one sees the little creatures standing in forlorn and hungry groups in bitter weather, with nothing but long-since-eaten-off grass to live on … conditions in this Arctic spell beggar description. Only a few days ago there appeared … an account of two ponies completely frozen right in the residential part of Yelverton and the lives of these ponies were saved by the efforts of an A.A. patrolman.… Why, one asks, was the owner not rounded up by the police—not a difficult


matter, since all ponies are branded—to rescue his own beasts and not have their fate left to the A. A … and the goodwill of passers-by".
Mrs. M. D. Kirby, of Yelverton, is a lady who has bred ponies on the Welsh mountains and she has kept ponies out all along. She is a lady with some experience of what they can withstand. She said that she had
…never before witnessed such callous disregard for stock.
As late as June last year there were many starving mares and young stock seen around Princetown at the time of the sales. That was in June when it is to be hoped that these animals would have recovered to some extent from the rigours of their winter outings. This matter was most effectively put in a letter from Lady Sayer, who knows Dartmoor and who lives at Widecombe-in-the-Moor. I shall not quote one or two of the flattering things she said about me, but I quote this part of the communication because I think it as well to have it on record:
We know that some Dartmoor farmers are both efficient and humane, and never run more animals on the Moor than they can drive down to their home fields for feeding in bad weather. We know there are others who simply exploit the suffering of the animals for the subsidies they can get from a Ministry of Agriculture which shells out' grants (of our money) without taking proper account of the consequences.
She rightly points out that the National Farmers' Union defends the present situation. What is more surprising is that the Duchy of Cornwall, the largest landowner on Dartmoor, apparently also condones this deplorable and most unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am advised that years ago the Duchy took strict charge of its Dartmoor land, impounding strays, culling unfit animals and so on, but all that has been allowed to go into disuse. Here is another investigation which I hope the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will conduct.
I am not going to argue the case here and now, but we know that subsidies are paid for hill cows and sheep. I wonder to what extent the Ministry takes the trouble to enforce one of the conditions of those subsidies, namely that applicants may be required to use up to 40 per cent. of the subsidy in improving their land. It would be very interesting to know to what extent the Ministry has required any of these farmers on Dartmoor about whom

I and so many other people are complaining to see that this very useful proviso is applied.
We shall never know how many hundreds, if not thousands, of sheep, cattle and ponies have been frozen or starved to death on Dartmoor. We know that this has been an exceptional winter, but this is not a unique but an annual and, particularly this year, predictable disaster. It happens this year only to be a little worse than ever before.
The situation can be fairly summed up in the words of the leader writer in the Daily Telegraph of 26th January last:
What is wrong is that the moor is heavily over-stocked and that many animals are left out on it in the winter to fend for themselves The reason for this is that every animal carries a subsidy, whether or not its owner has, either the land or the fodder or the shelter for it. The result is that by the end of every winter the grazing is practically gone. The moor should in future be cleared from December to March and subsidies—perhaps increased—should be paid only to farmers who look after their stock properly.
I submit that that is a not unreasonable request.
When public opinion was stirred by these calamitous events on Dartmoor some notice had to be taken of them. It is true that a meeting was held in the House of Commons on 14th February last. It was a private meeting called by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), which was attended by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who I am glad to see on the Front Bench tonight, but who on this occasion was in the chair at this private meeting. Representatives were present of Dartmoor Commoners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the R.S.P.C.A., and the Horses and Ponies Protection Association. The Duchy of Cornwall, the War Department and the Air Ministry were also represented.
I have a copy of the Press reports released after the meeting. It seems to have been a very snug and smug affair in which everybody was patting everybody else on the back. What it boils down to is this. This seems to be the gist of it:
It was also agreed that farmers in general were well aware of the needs of their livestock and had done their utmost to look after them properly.


That was the considered verdict of this snug and smug little meeting held in a room at the Palace of Westminster a few days ago at which the Press was not present.
This snug and smug little meeting also put it on record that there was no overstocking on the moor. The concluding sentence of the Press report reads as follows:
In the meantime, the Ministry would give careful study to the experience of the past' few weeks to see what lessons might be drawn against the recurrence of similar difficult conditions in future.
It seems to have come as a blinding revelation that such conditions could develop, but there we have a promise from the Ministry that it will give careful study to the experience it has collected during the past few weeks.
It seems odd to me that for years past it has not done anything at all. It would have been very much more satisfactory if some of the ladies and gentlemen whose names I have quoted had also been invited to attend this meeting. Perhaps there would have been even greater interest if such a meeting could have been held in Exeter or elsewhere in Devon which all people who have something to contribute could have attended and given the Ministry the benefit of their knowledge and experience.
I do not know what happened at that private meeting. Apparently there was no item on the agenda about the sufferings of the stock on the moor. I repeat what I said about the meeting: it was a purely whitewashing operation to cover up the deficiencies of certain people who have some responsibility for the welfare of livestock on Dartmoor.
I am convinced that the British public has no intention of allowing the sheep, cattle and ponies to suffer again the slow starvation of another winter on the moor. It is a solemn obligation on the shoulders of the Government to see that this kind of thing is never allowed to happen again.
I have made several suggestions tonight. I hope that the Government will not allow what has happened on Dartmoor this winter to be repeated. I hope that they will not allow themselves to be deluded by the callous and irresponsible minority of Dartmoor farmers who, in the face of all that has happened in the

past few weeks, keep on repeating, "We know best. Leave it to us, because we know what we are doing."
If we leave it to them we must look forward to a repetition of these hardships and cruelties, of which we have had ample evidence in the past few weeks. I hope, therefore, that the Government will take definite action to ensure that these revolting cruelties and hardships are not allowed to be repeated.

9.32 p.m.

Sir Henry Studholme: We have listened to what I can only call a rather highly coloured discourse from the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton).

Mr. Lipton: An accurate one, nevertheless.

Sir H. Studholme: He has also shown that he is not altogether familiar with my part of the world and with its geography. As we all know, the trouble with the hon. Member for Brixton is that he can never resist the lure of publicity. He is never happier than when he is smelling out what he considers to be a juicy piece of scandal.
I should like to assure him that we had a warning that snow was on its way. I was there at the time. However, we had no warning to the effect that it would be a blizzard. No one knew about that, and that was the trouble. I am sorry for the people on neighbouring farms which were overrun by sheep. Anyone who knows the conditions of this area realises that with snowdrifts high above the fences the sheep could run for miles and nothing could keep them in. I am sorry for the people who were overrun, but it was inevitable. Of course, they are able to take legal action against the owners if they wish.
The hon. Member for Brixton raised the question of the ponies and where they had gone. The cattle grids were covered with snow and the ponies could get out over them almost anywhere. They would be miles away in no time all over the countryside. I recall a Question which the hon. Member asked in the House on 30th January last when he stated:
…the callous and mercenary farmers in Dartmoor are exploiting the humane instincts of the public in efforts to minimise the


appalling suffering caused by the selfishness and negligence of these farmers."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 30th January, 1963; Vol. 670. c. 919.]
However, when he referred to "these farmers on Dartmoor" tonight he at least qualified the remark by referring to them as "a minority". Nevertheless, his wide and sweeping statements are extremely mischievous and irresponsible. It was very extravagant language.
The case of sheep being drowned which the hon. Member quoted is perfectly true. I do not want to decry what the R.S.P.C.A. did but by dropping bales of hay among the sheep, it is true that this disturbed many of them. They ran downhill and many were drowned in the river. I do not pretend that all farmers are angels, any more than are all Members of Parliament or any other collection of people, but I maintain that the great majority of farmers on Dartmoor do their very best to look after their stock. There are a few people who run animals on the moor—I would not call them all farmers—who are not as particular as the good farmers. I would never defend anyone who neglected his stock, but I would always stand up for the good farmers and they are in the majority.
In one of the shriller Sunday newspapers there was a very, lurid and sensational report of the horrors of Dartmoor as portrayed in an interview by the hon. Member for Brixton. Today in the Western Morning News I read:
M.P. to stage ' showdown ' on Dartmoor Animals. Intends to deal caustically with London conference which Sir Henry Studholme convened to review whole problem.
This private meeting in the House of Commons at which the Press was not represented was merely an exercise in whitewashing a Dartmoor scandal.
It was true that it was a private meeting. It is often better to hold these meetings without the Press being present. I informed the Press beforehand and they were perfectly happy. I explained the position and they had a full report afterwards.
I was not concerned with making publicity. Unlike the hon. Member for Brixton, what I wanted to do was to arrive at a fair picture. After all these widespread, sweeping and even contradictory statements and allegations had been made I thought that it would be much better for all the people concerned

to get down to it and explain their point of view and hear what each other had to say.
In consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), it was decided, I think rightly, to confine the invitations to the meeting to those organisations which represented people who were actually engaged in animal husbandry on Dartmoor. We included also the R.S.P.C.A. who had been busy working there in the past weeks and the Duchy of Cornwall which was naturally interested as the largest landowner on the moor. The War Department had observers at the meeting because the Department has a training area there and is in constant touch with the farmers. The Air Ministry was represented because it was responsible for the airlift which did such a fine and necessary job to help farmers to get fodder out to their stock in these terribly difficult conditions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brixton has not the foggiest idea of what conditions were like. I was not concerned with publicity.

Mr. Lipton: No, with hushing it up.

Sir H. Studholme: I was concerned to see what practical steps could be taken to put right anything that was wrong. I hate cruelty to animals, but I was concerned to see that all who were involved had a fair crack of the whip. We had a frank, wide-ranging discussion and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for assuring us that the Government are sympathetic towards introducing legislation to deal with commons and that they consider it urgent and necessary.
Last year I approached the Minister on this very question. He explained to me that although he was very sympathetic, what with the Common Market and all the other negotiations which were going on at the time, it was quite impossible to indicate when the Government would be able to consider legislation. That was fair enough. Now we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend.
I am very grateful because what we need is legislation to regulate the grazing on the moor. This is what the Dartmoor Commoners Association and the Duchy of Cornwall have been asking for for a long


time. We have not had it yet because everything is governed by priorities. There was a series of mild winters, but, for the last two years, this problem has cropped up and now it is a matter of priority. I am very glad that it is.
I do not know how much the lion. Member for Brixton understands the problem. I do not think that he understands it very well. It is very complicated because of the ancient grazing rights on the moor which go back for hundreds of years. Two matters need definition. Who exactly are the commoners, and what exactly are their rights and obligations? Then some body must be set up to see that the rules are carried out, and this, of course, needs legislation.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read the excellent Report presented by the Dartmoor commoners to the Royal Commission on Common Land in 1956. I do not know whether he has.

Mr. Lipton: I have.

Sir H. Studholme: I am very glad, although, in that case, the hon. Gentleman ought to know a little more about it than he does.

Mr. Lipton: I have taken the trouble to read what the commoners submitted to the Royal Commission in 1956. May I just quote what they said by way of conclusion and summary:
We wish to make clear that what we seek to achieve is liberty in the sense in which Clemenceau defined it, namely, the right to discipline ourselves so as not to be disciplined by somebody else.
They have not reached that stage even yet.

Sir H. Studholme: That is an excellent principle. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that the Dartmoor commoners produced an admirable set of rules for good animal husbandry on the moor. The application of these rules would enable them to discipline themselves. The rules are excellent. They cover the culling of all old ewes and cows. They include the control of swaling. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman knows what that is. Swaling is the burning of heather, and it has to be done in a certain way because otherwise it spoils the heather. The rules also cover such matters as the improvement of the type and the limiting of the number of stallions on Dartmoor. Further,

they cover the provision of fodder banks from which stock can be fed in hard weather.
These rules could very well be embodied in legislation passed to deal with Dartmoor. I envisage some sort of body being set up like the Court of Verderers——

Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. For some minutes now, the hon. Gentleman has been arguing the case for legislation to deal with Dartmoor. Is it in order to argue for legislation in an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Speaker: It is the practice on these occasions to allow such incidental reference to legislation as I think relevant to the burden of the debate. That is under the Standing Order. The hon. Member has not yet reached a stage when I think that that standard has been transgressed.

Sir H. Studholme: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I envisage the setting up of some such body as the Court of Verderers in the New Forest. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brixton has read the New Forest Act, 1949. Perhaps he has not. The Court of Verderers functions extremely well, and something on those lines would be very useful for Dartmoor.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman should not be so patronising.

Sir H. Studholme: If the hon. Member for Brixton has read it, he can say so.
Of course, the registering of commoners will take some time to complete, but it is an essential part of the scheme. There has been similar registration in the New Forest. I rejoice that we now see the prospect of getting grazing on Dartmoor properly regulated in the not too distant future.
Dartmoor consists of 140,000 acres. It is not overstocked. There is one ewe to every three or four acres and one cow to every thirty or forty acres. That is not over-stocking. But it is true that at certain times of the year some parts of the commons of Dartmoor tend to be overstocked because animals congregate there to get certain fodder and also because, unfortunately, there are many silly people who feed them by the roads


and attract them from their feeding grounds, and, although they are fined for doing so if they are caught, this is a great pity and I hope that this practice will be discontinued.
It is very difficult to clear the moor of sheep in winter. Scotch sheep are bred for the hills. Dartmoor is not comparable to Scotland because if sheep are brought down from the high tops in Scotland they are brought down to the glens where their feed is much the same. If sheep are brought down from the moor to the lower land, their feed is different. In bad weather, the nature of the flock is to go to the hill where there is heather, gorse and rough moorland grass which the sheep can eat. To keep Scotch sheep in the valleys would do more harm than good because the herbage there is wrong and they will not stand improved pasturage because of their digestion. This is a big problem for the moorland farmers when they bring their sheep in for tupping. The veterinary evidence shows that sheep which move from the hill to richer pastures get all sorts of things wrong with them, inside.
I now turn to the subsidy. It has
been suggested by people like like the hon. Member for Brixton that farmers do not care and that they let their sheep die because they can get a subsidy. But one does not let an animal worth £6 die in the problematical chance of getting a 6s. subsidy. This would be quite mad. This cruel winter has certainly caused hardship to animals on the moor; there is no doubt about that. It has caused hardship to animals all over the country. But if animals can get food they do not mind the cold. The airlift has certainly done a wonderful job. It has enabled many farmers to get fodder out to their animals which they would not otherwise have been able to do because of the snow drifts.
Accusations of cruelty have been made, but what prosecutions have there been? If there are accusations of cruelty, it is up to the R.S.P.C.A. to prosecute. Prosecution is a good thing if cruelty can be proved. No one can defend cruelty. It is easy to ascertain who are the owners of animals because the animals are earmarked.
The hon. Member for Brixton has made some very wild accusations and I very much wonder how much of the country outside London he has seen during the last snowy weeks. Has he tried, like some of us, to take fodder out to the cattle and sheep across the snow and ice in this wintry weather? Has he seen the moorland farmers himself and talked to both sides in this matter? If he had done so, perhaps he would not have spoken in the extravagant manner that he has.
This has been a cruel winter and I hope that when it is over it will be found that livestock have not really suffered unduly and that, in spite of the wild and sweeping accusations against Dartmoor farmers made by the hon. Member and other people not always best qualified to judge, the losses on the MOOT will turn out to be no greater in proportion to those on farms generally throughout the country.

9.49 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins): I am glad that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has raised the question of livestock on Dartmoor, and I accept that he put forward the case in all sincerity. He is. however, almost completely wrong in most of what he has said, as are some of the so-called authorities that he has quoted. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) has, on many points, refuted the case put forward by the hon. Member. I hope to prove conclusively to him and to the House that the measures which we have taken and are taking to look after the welfare of the stock on Dartmoor and elsewhere have been really worthwhile and that we and the farmers of Dartmoor care about their stock.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, I cannot accept the sweeping accusations made by the hon. Member, from his slightest of personal knowledge of conditions down there, about what has gone on during the recent excessively bad weather. I hope that the hon. Member realises that this has been the worst winter weather on Dartmoor for many years. I am informed by the Meteorological Office experts that there has been snow on the ground for sixty days recently, which is the longest period for a very long time.
Whilst talking about the weather conditions, I should like to amplify a little what my hon. Friend has said in reply to the hon. Member's point about warning. The hon. Member's accusation was completely false. He said that ample warning was given to the farmers of Dartmoor. The forecast the day before the blizzard struck was that there would be light showers of snow, which do no harm whatever to stock on Dartmoor or other open moors. It was not until 6 p.m. on the night of the blizzard that the warning came that there would be a blizzard that night. It was at 6 p.m. in the winter, just after Christmas, when the nights are dark, that the warning came to the farmers of Dartmoor that they would be struck that very night by a blizzard. It is all very well for the hon. Member to wave his hand while he is sitting down, but he has made these accusations without proper knowledge. That is inexcusable.
The second thing that the hon. Member does not seem to realise concerns the condition and the type of stock on Dartmoor. The hon. Member has concentrated on the sheep population as suffering, according to him, the maximum hardship. Most of the sheep on Dartmoor are Scotch Black Face sheep. These sheep are accustomed to wintering on hills and high land. They do this in Scotland, on much higher land than we have down on Dartmoor, and they are used to the conditions which are met on Dartmoor and have, indeed, occurred during the recent bad weather.
I am informed that the normal practice on the hill land in Scotland is frequently to leave the sheep out and to lamb them there. They are perfectly able to stand this, no undue losses occur and they are perfectly healthy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock has spoken about what happens if these hardy sheep are brought down from the moors and hills to the valleys or the in-bye land. The damage that this does to their constitutions and to the sheep themselves is considerable. The whole metabolism of the sheep is upset. As my hon. Friend has said, the digestive powers and resources of the animal are affected.
It is simply not good husbandry to bring hardy Highland sheep down from the hills into in-bye land, to send them back again two or three months later to lamb up on the moorland, and to expect

them to remain hardy stock. This is a
point which, I expect, the hon. Member, living in the cosy comfort of Brixton, does not understand. I do not expect him to understand it either, but I hope that he will read these words tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Brixton accused my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock of calling the meeting which was held here in the Palace of Westminster, and at which I had the pleasure of taking the chair, solely for the purpose of "whitewashing" the operation which had been carried out on Dartmoor. That simply was not the case.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself realises that the R.S.P.C.A. and the Horses and Ponies Protection Society were represented at that meeting. They had ample opportunity, of which they took advantage, to voice their feelings and opinions. This was a proper effort by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock to go into what had happened with the other interested parties and to see how we could improve the arrangements.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman sneered at the last words of the Press notice about seeing what lessons might be learnt in case of a recurrence of this weather. One can always do better than one has done, and my right hon. Friend and the Department are continually improving on what they are doing—as, indeed, are the Conservative Government all along the line. Yes, I am speaking the truth, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann), who is wriggling in his seat, will find.
At that meeting, we were not trying to whitewash anyone. We were trying to make certain that the arrangements for co-operation in any future operations of this nature were the best that could be made. We wanted to see that they would be smoother in future. When the hon. Member referred to emergency operations, I could not understand whether he was attacking us for spending too much money in looking after the welfare of these animals throughout these conditions or whether he was saying that we should make different arrangements.

Mr. Lipton: I was trying to express some surprise that after all this effort had been made and all this money had been spent, some of the farmers on Dartmoor


seemed still so ungrateful, telling us to mind our own business.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The people who were ungrateful were those who were referring to the R.S.P.C.A. and the damage which had been done to their stock by well-intentioned help. This frequently happens. Well-intentioned people can do more damage than good if they do not fully appreciate what they are doing. There are the two instances quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock. First, the stock brought down to villages and fed by hand, although it is an offence, which leads to a great deal of damage to the stock, and, secondly, the case of helicopter frightening sheep into a river.

Mr. Lipton: Then ban the R.S.P.C.A.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The R.S.P.C.A., with the other bodies at that meeting, agreed that the farmers and commoners on Dartmoor have the welfare of their animals truly at heart.
I turn now to the emergency operation. I was in the South-West at my home in Cornwall, so I was on the spot. I was in constant communication by telephone with officials of the Ministry, and I join with my hon. Friend—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join with us in doing so—in congratulating those officials and the members of the three Armed Forces who gave help to the farmers and commoners in getting fodder to the stock. They did a tremendous job in foul and beastly weather. The hon. Gentleman will understand how filthy and foul the weather can be there. These people did wonderful work over a very long and arduous period. I want to record our thanks to them for what they did.
Another point concerned the operation of the subsidy and the claim that there were too many sheep or too many animals on the moor. I dispute that statement altogether. There are approximately 140,000 acres of moor on which there are about 5,000 cattle, 2,000 ponies and 40,000 sheep. If a sheep is taken——

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. M. Hamilton.]

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If I may quickly run through the figures again; 5,000 cattle, 2,000 ponies and 40,000 sheep run on the moor and, taking a sheep as a quarter of a cow unit—if one may use that expression—there are approximately 17,000 units on the moor, taking a cow or a pony as being equivalent to a unit. As there are 140,000 acres, in aggregate there is roughly one animal to every eight acres. That is an extremely good proportion and even the hon. Member for Brixton, with his lack of knowledge of these matters, cannot say on those figures that the moor is overstocked.
I am informed that there was not a farmer without fodder who had cattle and sheep on the moor during the period. There was adequate fodder to feed the animals and it was a question of getting it from the farmsteads to where the animals happened to be. I have explained why it is bad for the stock to come down off the moor, how it is injurious to their health, apart from the fact that drifting is much more severe off the moor and on in-bye land. The problem was simply and solely getting the fodder to the animals.
During the emergency services there were 199 sorties to farms on Dartmoor out of 616 in the whole of the South-West. Not a single request for help was refused during the emergency. The R.S.P.C.A. helped in dropping fodder to ponies and other stock. It was agreed at the meeting which the hon. Member mentioned that in future we should cooperate more closely—that is, that the R.S.P.C.A. would co-operate more closely with us in tying in its operations with our own larger-scale help to farm animals on Dartmoor.
The hon. Member referred to the 40 per cent. of the subsidy which should be used, he said, for the improvement of the pasture on Dartmoor. I do not know whether he realises that this is common land and that no farmer who put this part of his subsidy into improving the moorland could be sure by any means that he would get the benefit from it. The power is entirely discretionary, and it is not practical at the moment because of the multiplicity and the indeterminate number of commoners. What is needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock said, is legislation and registration of


commoners and those who have common rights. Although there is discretionary power in the legislation which the hon. Member for Brixton quoted, as with many of his other suggestions, it would be impracticable and not worth trying to operate in these conditions.
The crux of the matter is what we can now do and what my hon. Friend referred to when he talked of legislation and the needs of the future. However, before I come to that I want to reply to the attack by the hon. Member for Brixton concerning the conditions of the ponies on the moor. I am sure that he is aware that my right hon. Friend has no power to control their numbers and that, of course, no subsidy is payable to farmers in respect of ponies. It is also true that the R.S.P.C.A. has helped with the feeding. However, our experience is the experience of most who know that part of the world—that these types of ponies winter better than any other kind of stock. Fear has been expressed that many of them will be found in rather far-flung places after all this snow has covered up their normal feeding grounds. But ponies usually go back to the grounds where they were foaled and to their normal feeding grounds, and I would not think that there would be very great losses on that score.
I turn again to the important point raised by my hon. Friend about what we must do in future to try to regulate the commons. I said that we must accept—and, indeed, the Government do accept —the recommendations of the Royal Commission Report about registering the rights of commoners and common lands throughout England and Wales. We accept that we must do this on the lines of the recommendations, and we shall do it as soon as Parliamentary time permits. There has been a heavy programme of legislation to date, but I hope it will not be too long before Parliamentary time will permit us to do this. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be with us in our desire to get such legislation on the Statute Book.

Mr. Lipton: It will take time.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It is a very complex matter, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, and it will require a great deal of understanding of the minute

details. It would be a great mistake to make an error in completely recasting and reshaping our laws concerning common land, which forms a very important part of our heritage. But it will go a very long way towards removing the practical difficulty that, because of uncertainties over grazing rights and land, commoners find it impossible to co-operate among themselves and agree on rules to regulate the grazing or to stop "pirate graziers" putting out their stock.
We recognise the need to establish once and for all the nature, extent and ownership of common land and common rights over the whole country. We believe it can be done in far less time than the twelve years recommended by the Royal Commission. We expect to see the job through in about five years. Time unavoidably lost on the legislation swings should be largely, if not entirely, recovered on the registration roundabouts. In this connection, I will certainly take note of the suggestions made by my hon. Friend and would also suggest that in the meantime the commoners might usefully address their minds to the claims—the extent and nature of their rights—which they may wish to enter when the time comes.
I hope I have, perhaps not convinced, but shown the hon. Gentleman that many of his accusations and many of the authorities which he quoted were not right in their facts and their premises, and that the farmers of Dartmoor have risked life and limb over the past six or seven weeks in looking after their stock. They have had a very difficult and hard time, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not make it more difficult for them in the future. I think that they have done an extremely good job in looking after their stock. I am sure that it is their intention not to have any losses if they can possibly avoid it. As my hon. Friend said, what man, other than a fool, wants to throw money and capital away? That has not happened, and I am certain that in the future the farmers will do their utmost, as they have done in the past and as they have done this year, to look after their stock.
I think that the services which the Government have rendered them have been well employed, both on humanitarian grounds and on sheer good


husbandry grounds, in helping them out. I am sure that the expenditure has been well worth while. Even if what I have said does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it will set his mind at rest that we, the commoners, and the farmers and graziers on Dartmoor are not complacent but that we entirely and utterly reject his accusations.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for initiating this debate, to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) for putting his side of the case, and to the Parliamentary Secretary for his contribution. However, after listening to the Parliamentary Secretary I still feel that many people in the West Country will be uneasy about what may happen if during the next five years, or even during any one of those five years, we get severe winters of the kind we have just experienced.
I think that he hon. Gentleman dismissed too lightly the question of overstocking the moor. I am not sure of the figures. The hon. Gentleman spoke about 140,000 acres of Dartmoor, but half that area is in military occupation, and I am not sure to what extent the military half of Dartmoor is stocked during the winter.

Sir H. Studholme: I believe that the military occupy about 25,000 acres, which, compared with the whole of Dartmoor, is a fairly small area.

Mr. Hayman: I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I was under the impression that the military occupied a larger proportion of the moor.
My information coincides with that of the hon. Member and the Parliamentary Secretary, that mountain sheep suffer physically if they are brought down to lowland grass. I think that the hon. Gentleman gave a figure of 14,000 sheep on Dartmoor. If mountain sheep suffer in that way, is it not all the more necessary to take care to see that these sheep, which cannot be fed in the valleys in the same way as mountain sheep in Scotland can be fed in the glens because the herb-

age is similar, are provided for by ensuring that the moor is not overstocked? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will carry out an investigation into this aspect of the difficulty.
I do not subscribe to the widespread accusations made against farmers on Dartmoor, but I think that there is some substance in the widespread complaints in the correspondence columns of the Western Morning News in recent weeks. The hon. Member for Brixton quoted extensively from newspaper reports, and I think that there is something in those arguments which merits attention.
Like the other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I pay tribute to the men who manned the helicopters for the magnificent work they did. I also pay tribute to all those who assisted them. I think that we were all taken by surprise by this terrific series of blizzards. Even yesterday when I came up in the train I noticed that some of the heights of Dartmoor were still covered in snow and there were deep drifts along the hedges. I hope that there will be a thorough investigation into the problem of looking after sheep in severe winters.
I believe that at a meeting last Thursday the R.S.P.C.A. said that in its view cattle and ponies ought not to be out on the moor in winter. I accept what has been said, that ponies can probably weather the winter better than any other stock, but I still feel that there are far too many ponies on Dartmoor, and there will still be silly people who feed them, no matter how drastic may be the penalties. I hope that they will be made much more drastic, because it makes me furious to see people in their cars, with small children, feeding these animals, which could quite easily snap at them—quite apart from the danger to pedestrians and everybody else.
We are grateful to those who manned the helicopters. Some people were landed in the field just behind my house to go into an adjoining hospital. It was a magnificent service both ways. We are extremely grateful to all concerned.
It was a pity that the Dartmoor Preservation Association and one or two other similar bodies were not represented at last Thursday's meeting, especially as the Parliamentary Secretary was in the


chair. If further meetings are held I hope that all bodies which are interested
in the moor will have a chance to voice their views. Their absence last Thursday caused some anxiety.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that we shall probably have to wait five years for the promised legislation to be implemented. I am less concerned about that

than I am about some measures being taken to see that, if we have another winter like this one, the animals on the moor will not be exposed to the hazards that they have experienced this winter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock.